Evaluation of Accuracy in Proband-Reported Family History and Its Determinants: The Genes in Myopia Family Study

An investigation into the validity of self-reported classification of refractive error

PURPOSE

To assess the validity of questionnaire use in the self-identification of refractive status.

METHODS

Two hundred and forty adults (21-60 years of age) presenting for a routine eye examination at various optometric practices in Northern Ireland were asked to complete one of two questionnaires. Both questionnaires used identical questions to ascertain age, gender, current spectacle use, age of first spectacle use and level of education. For the identification of refractive status, Questionnaire 1 used layman's terminology whilst Questionnaire 2 combined optometric terminology with descriptive explanations. Current refractive status was identified by the examining optometrist who did not see the completed questionnaire. The spherical equivalent refractive error of the non-cycloplegic subjective refraction was used to categorise myopia as <0D and hyperopia as ≥+1.00D. Astigmatism was defined according to two different criteria: ≥0.50DC and ≥1.00DC.

RESULTS

Questionnaire 1 had a sensitivity of 0.63 and a specificity of 0.90 for identifying myopia; a sensitivity of 0.58 and a specificity of 0.71 for identifying hyperopia; a sensitivity of 0.12 and a specificity of 0.98 for identifying astigmatism ≥0.50DC and a sensitivity of 0.19 and a specificity of 0.95 for identifying astigmatism ≥1.00DC. Questionnaire 2 had a sensitivity of 0.83 and a specificity of 0.93 for identifying myopia; a sensitivity of 0.45 and a specificity of 0.86 for identifying hyperopia; a sensitivity of 0.32 and a specificity of 0.88 for identifying astigmatism ≥0.50DC and a sensitivity of 0.50 and a specificity of 0.84 for identifying astigmatism ≥1.00DC. For both questionnaires, altering a positive self-identification of myopia to include only those who had worn spectacles prior to age 30 reduced the sensitivity and increased the specificity slightly.

CONCLUSIONS

Questionnaires are a valid tool in self-identification of myopic refractive status. However, they are not an effective way of identifying hyperopia and astigmatism and objective or subjective refraction remains the most appropriate method of identifying such individuals.

The GEnes in Myopia (GEM) study in understanding the aetiology of refractive errors

Refractive errors represent the leading cause of correctable vision impairment and blindness in the world with an estimated 2 billion people affected. Refractive error refers to a group of refractive conditions including hypermetropia, myopia, astigmatism and presbyopia but relatively little is known about their aetiology. In order to explore the potential role of genetic determinants in refractive error the "GEnes in Myopia (GEM) study" was established in 2004. The findings that have resulted from this study have not only provided greater insight into the role of genes and other factors involved in myopia but have also gone some way to uncovering the aetiology of other refractive errors. This review will describe some of the major findings of the GEM study and their relative contribution to the literature, illuminate where the deficiencies are in our understanding of the development of refractive errors and how we will advance this field in the future.