The development & evaluation of two vision screening tools for correctable visual loss in older people

Worsening vision at age 4-5 in England post-COVID: Evidence from a large database of vision screening data

PURPOSE

Myopia prevalence has increased in the UK at age 10-16y, but little is known about younger children. We hypothesise that if the 'myopia epidemic' is affecting young children, then there will be increasing rates of bilateral reduced unaided vision (V) at vision screenings of children 4-5 years of age.

METHODS

Retrospective anonymised data from computerised vision screening at age 4-5 years were analysed from serial cross-sectional data. Refractive error is not assessed in UK vision screening, so vision was investigated. Data were only included from schools that screened every year from 2015/16 to 2021/22. The criterion used was unaided monocular logMAR (automated letter-by-letter scoring) vision >0.20 in both the right and left eyes, so as to maximise the chances of detecting bilateral, moderate myopia rather than amblyopia.

RESULTS

Anonymised raw data were obtained for 359,634 screening episodes from 2075 schools. Once schools were excluded where data were not available for every year and data were cleaned, the final database comprised 110,076 episodes. The proportion (percentage and 95% CI) failing the criterion from 2015/16 to 2021/22 were 7.6 (7.2-8.0), 8.5 (8.1-8.9), 7.5 (7.1-7.9), 7.8 (7.4-8.2), 8.7 (8.1-9.2), 8.5 (7.9-9.0) and 9.3 (8.8-9.7), respectively. The slope of the regression line showed a trend for increasing rates of reduced bilateral unaided vision, consistent with increasing frequency of myopia (p = 0.06). A decreasing linear trendline was noted for children 'Under Professional Care'.

CONCLUSIONS

For children 4-5 years of age, there were signs of reduced vision over the last 7 years in England. Consideration of the most likely causes support the hypothesis of increasing myopia. The increase in screening failures highlights the importance of eye care in this young population.

Screening for Impaired Visual Acuity in Older Adults: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force

Importance

A 2016 review for the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) found that effective treatments are available for refractive errors, cataracts, and wet (advanced neovascular) or dry (atrophic) age-related macular degeneration (AMD), but there were no differences between visual screening vs no screening on visual acuity or other outcomes.

Objective

To update the 2016 review on screening for impaired visual acuity in older adults, to inform the USPSTF.

Data Sources

Ovid MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (to February 2021); surveillance through January 21, 2022.

Study Selection

Randomized clinical trials and controlled observational studies on screening, vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors (wet AMD), and antioxidant vitamins and minerals (dry AMD); studies on screening diagnostic accuracy.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

One investigator abstracted data and a second checked accuracy. Two investigators independently assessed study quality.

Results

Twenty-five studies (N = 33 586) were included (13 trials, 11 diagnostic accuracy studies, and 1 systematic review [19 trials]). Four trials (n = 4819) found no significant differences between screening vs no screening in visual acuity or other outcomes. Visual acuity tests (3 studies; n = 6493) and screening question (3 studies; n = 5203) were associated with suboptimal diagnostic accuracy. For wet AMD, 4 trials (n = 2086) found VEGF inhibitors significantly associated with greater likelihood of 15 or more letters visual acuity gain (risk ratio [RR], 2.92 [95% CI, 1.20-7.12]; I2 = 76%; absolute risk difference [ARD], 10%) and less than 15 letters visual acuity loss (RR, 1.46 [95% CI, 1.22-1.75]; I2 = 80%; ARD, 27%) vs sham treatment, with no increased risk of serious harms. For dry AMD, a systematic review (19 trials) found antioxidant multivitamins significantly associated with decreased risk of progression to late AMD (3 trials, n = 2445; odds ratio [OR], 0.72 [95% CI, 0.58-0.90]) and 3 lines or more visual acuity loss (1 trial, n = 1791; OR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.62-0.96]) vs placebo. Zinc was significantly associated with increased risk of genitourinary events and beta carotene with increased risk of lung cancer in former smokers; other serious harms were infrequent.

Conclusions and Relevance

This review found that effective treatments are available for common causes of impaired visual acuity in older adults. However, direct evidence found no significant association between vision screening vs no screening in primary care and improved visual outcomes.

Vision Screening of Ophthalmic Nursing Staff in a Tertiary Eye Care Hospital: Outcomes and ocular healthcare-seeking behaviours

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate ocular healthcare-seeking behaviours and vision screening outcomes of nursing staff at a tertiary eye care hospital.

METHODS

This study was conducted between April and September 2016 among all 500 nurses employed at the King Khaled Eye Specialist Hospital, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Data were collected on age, gender, use of visual aids, the presence of diabetes, a history of refractive surgery and date of last ocular health check-up. Participants were tested using a handheld Spot^™ Vision Screener (Welch Allyn Inc., Skaneateles Falls, New York, USA).

RESULTS

A total of 150 nurses participated in the study (response rate: 30.0%). The mean age was 41.2 ± 8.9 years old. Distance spectacles, reading spectacles and both types of spectacles were used by 37 (24.7%), 32 (21.3%) and 10 (6.7%) nurses, respectively. A total of 58 nurses (38.7%) failed the vision screening test. Visual defects were detected for the first time in 13 nurses (8.7%). With regards to regular eye checkups, 77 participants (51.3%) reported acceptable ocular healthcare-seeking behaviours; this factor was significantly associated with age and the use of visual aids (P <0.01 each).

CONCLUSION

A high proportion of participants failed the vision screening tests and only half displayed good ocular healthcare-seeking behaviours. This is concerning as ophthalmic nurses are likely to face fewer barriers to eye care services than the general population.