Associations between visual function and magnitude of refractive error for emmetropic to moderately hyperopic 4‐ and 5‐year‐old children in the Vision in Preschoolers ‐ Hyperopia in Preschoolers Study

Detection of significant vision conditions in children using QuickSee wavefront autorefractor

PURPOSE

This study evaluated the ability of QuickSee to detect children at risk for significant vision conditions (significant refractive error [RE], amblyopia and strabismus).

METHODS

Non-cycloplegic refraction (using QuickSee without and with +2 dioptre (D) fogging lenses) and unaided binocular near visual acuity (VA) were measured in 4- to 12-year-old children. Eye examination findings (VA, cover testing and cycloplegic retinoscopy) were used to determine the presence of vision conditions. QuickSee performance was summarised by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity and specificity for various levels of RE. QuickSee referral criteria for each vision condition were chosen to maximise sensitivity at a specificity of approximately 85%-90%. Sensitivity and specificity to detect vision conditions were calculated using multiple criteria. Logistic regression was used to evaluate the benefit of adding near VA (6/12 or worse) for detecting hyperopia. A paired t-test compared QuickSee without and with fogging lenses.

RESULTS

The mean age was 8.2 (±2.5) years (n = 174). RE ranged up to 9.25 D myopia, 8 D hyperopia, 5.25 D astigmatism and 3.5 D anisometropia. The testability of the QuickSee was 94.3%. AUC was ≥0.92 (excellent) for each level of RE. For the detection of any RE, sensitivity and specificity were 84.2% and 87.3%, respectively, using modified Orinda criteria and 94.5% and 78.2%, respectively, using the American Academy for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus (AAPOS) guidelines. For the detection of any significant vision condition, the sensitivity and specificity of QuickSee were 81.1% and 87.9%, respectively, using modified Orinda criteria and 93% and 78.6%, respectively, using AAPOS criteria. There was no significant benefit of adding near VA to QuickSee for the detection of hyperopia ≥+2.00 (p = 0.34). There was no significant difference between QuickSee measurements of hyperopic refractive error with and without fogging lenses (difference = -0.09 D; p = 0.51).

CONCLUSIONS

QuickSee had high discriminatory power for detecting children with hyperopia, myopia, astigmatism, anisometropia, any significant refractive error or any significant vision condition.

Hyperopia in schoolchildren: Investigating the impact on vision and determining appropriate methods for screening

INTRODUCTION

Hyperopia is associated with reduced vision and educational outcomes in schoolchildren. This study explored the impact of clinically significant hyperopia (≥+2.00 D) on visual function in schoolchildren and compared the ability of different screening tests (alone and in combination) to detect this level of hyperopia.

METHODS

Vision testing including monocular logMAR visual acuity (VA) measured to threshold (distance [DVA], near [NVA] and DVA through a plus lens [+2.50 D]), stereoacuity and cycloplegic autorefraction (tropicamide 1%) were undertaken on 263 schoolchildren (mean age: 11.76 years ± 3.38) in Queensland, Australia. Vision measures were compared between children with clinically significant hyperopia in at least one meridian (≥+2.00 D) and emmetropia/low hyperopia (>0.00 and <+2.00 D). Receiver operating curve (ROC) analysis was performed to identify optimal pass/fail criteria for each test and the diagnostic accuracy of individual and combinations of tests.

RESULTS

Thirty-two children had clinically significant hyperopia and 225 had emmetropia/low hyperopia. DVA and NVA were worse (p < 0.01), while the difference in DVA through a plus lens was less in children with clinically significant hyperopia (p < 0.01). ROC analysis for individual tests resulted in areas under the curve (AUCs) ranging from 0.65 to 0.85. Combining screening tests revealed that failing one or more of the following tests was most effective for detecting hyperopia: DVA, NVA and difference in DVA through a plus lens, resulting in a sensitivity and specificity of 72% and 81%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Significant differences in visual function existed between schoolchildren with clinically significant hyperopia and emmetropia/low hyperopia. Combining measures of DVA and NVA and the difference in DVA through a plus lens demonstrated good discriminative ability for detecting clinically significant hyperopia in this population.

A population-level post-screening treatment cost framework to help inform vision screening choices for children under the age of seven

PURPOSE/BACKGROUND

Visual acuity (VA) screening in children primarily detects low VA and amblyopia between 3 and 6 years of age. Photoscreening is a low-cost, lower-expertise alternative which can be carried out on younger children and looks instead for refractive amblyopia risk factors so that early glasses may prevent or mitigate the conditions. The long-term benefits and costs of providing many children with glasses in an attempt to avoid development of amblyopia for some of them needs clarification. This paper presents a framework for modeling potential post-referral costs of different screening models once referred children reach specialist services.

METHODS

The EUSCREEN Screening Cost-Effectiveness Model was used together with published literature to estimate referral rates and case mix of referrals from different screening modalities (photoscreening and VA screening at 2, 3-4 years and 4-5 years). UK 2019-20 published National Health Service (NHS) costings were used across all scenarios to model the comparative post-referral costs to the point of discharge from specialist services. Potential costs were compared between a) orthoptist, b) state funded ophthalmologist and c) private ophthalmologist care.

RESULTS

Earlier VA screening and photoscreening yield higher numbers of referrals because of lower sensitivity and specificity for disease, and a different case mix, compared to later VA screening. Photoscreening referrals are a mixture of reduced VA caused by amblyopia and refractive error, and children with amblyopia risk factors, most of which are treated with glasses. Costs relate mainly to the secondary care providers and the number of visits per child. Treatment by an ophthalmologist of a referral at 2 years of age can be more than x10 more expensive than an orthoptist service receiving referrals at 5 years, but outcomes can still be good from referrals aged 5.

CONCLUSIONS

All children should be screened for amblyopia and low vision before the age of 6. Very early detection of amblyopia refractive risk factors may prevent or mitigate amblyopia for some affected children, but population-level outcomes from a single high-quality VA screening at 4-5 years can also be very good. Total patient-journey costs incurred by earlier detection and treatment are much higher than if screening is carried out later because younger children need more professional input before discharge, so early screening is less cost-effective in the long term. Population coverage, local healthcare models, local case-mix, public health awareness, training, data monitoring and audit are critical factors to consider when planning, evaluating, or changing any screening programme.

A School Eye Health Rapid Assessment (SEHRA) planning tool: Module to survey the magnitude and nature of local needs

Background

Eye conditions in children can have negative consequences on visual functioning and quality of life. There is a lack of data on the magnitude of children with eye conditions who need services for effective planning of school eye health programmes. To address this, the School Eye Health Rapid Assessment (SEHRA) tool is being developed to collect data to support school eye health programme planning.

Methods

The module, ‘the magnitude and nature of local needs in school children’ is the first of six modules in the SEHRA tool. The module outlines a school-based cluster survey designed to determine the magnitude of eye health needs in children. This paper outlines the survey sampling strategy, and sample size calculations.

Results

The requirements for the SEHRA survey indicate that in regions where a larger sample size is required, or where fewer schools are recruited to the survey, confidence in the accuracy of the data will be lower.

Conclusions

The SEHRA survey module ‘the magnitude and nature of local needs in school children’ can be applied in any context. In certain circumstances, the confidence in the survey data will be reduced.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12889-022-13927-x.

The Impact of Hyperopia on Academic Performance Among Children: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

To assess the impact of uncorrected hyperopia and hyperopic spectacle correction on children's academic performance.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

We searched 9 electronic databases from inception to July 26, 2021, for studies assessing associations between hyperopia and academic performance. There were no restrictions on language, publication date, or geographic location. A quality checklist was applied. Random-effects models estimated pooled effect size as a standardized mean difference (SMD) in 4 outcome domains: cognitive skills, educational performance, reading skills, and reading speed. (PROSPERO registration: CRD-42021268972).

RESULTS

Twenty-five studies (21 observational and 4 interventional) out of 3415 met the inclusion criteria. No full-scale randomized trials were identified. Meta-analyses of the 5 studies revealed a small but significant adverse effect on educational performance in uncorrected hyperopic compared to emmetropic children {SMD -0.18 [95% confidence interval (CI), -0.27 to -0.09]; P < 0.001, 4 studies} and a moderate negative effect on reading skills in uncorrected hyperopic compared to emmetropic children [SMD -0.46 (95% CI, -0.90 to -0.03); P = 0.036, 3 studies]. Reading skills were significantly worse in hyperopic than myopic children [SMD -0.29 (95% CI, -0.43 to -0.15); P < 0.001, 1 study]. Qualitative analysis on 10 (52.6%) of 19 studies excluded from meta-analysis found a significant (P < 0.05) association between uncorrected hyperopia and impaired academic performance. Two interventional studies found hyperopic spectacle correction significantly improved reading speed (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence indicates that uncorrected hyperopia is associated with poor academic performance. Given the limitations of current methodologies, further research is needed to evaluate the impact on academic performance of providing hyperopic correction.

Vision Screening, Vision Disorders, and Impacts of Hyperopia in Young Children: Outcomes of the Vision in Preschoolers (VIP) and Vision in Preschoolers - Hyperopia in Preschoolers (VIP-HIP) Studies

ABSTRACT

This review summarizes clinically relevant outcomes from the Vision in Preschoolers (VIP) and VIP-Hyperopia in Preschoolers (VIP-HIP) studies. In VIP, refraction tests (retinoscopy, Retinomax, SureSight) and Lea Symbols Visual Acuity performed best in identifying children with vision disorders. For lay screeners, Lea Symbols single, crowded visual acuity (VA) testing (VIP, 5-foot) was significantly better than linear, crowded testing (10-foot). Children unable to perform the tests (<2%) were more likely to have vision disorders than children who passed and should be referred for vision evaluation. Among racial/ethnic groups, the prevalence of amblyopia and strabismus was similar while that of hyperopia, astigmatism, and anisometropia varied. The presence of strabismus and significant refractive errors were risk factors for unilateral amblyopia, while bilateral astigmatism and bilateral hyperopia were risk factors for bilateral amblyopia. A greater risk of astigmatism was associated with Hispanic, African American, and Asian race, and myopic and hyperopic refractive error. The presence and severity of hyperopia were associated with higher rates of amblyopia, strabismus, and other associated refractive error. In the VIP-HIP study, compared to emmetropes, meaningful deficits in early literacy were observed in uncorrected hyperopic 4- and 5-year-olds [≥+4.0 diopter (D) or ≥+3.0 D to ≤+6.0 D associated with reduced near visual function (near VA 20/40 or worse; stereoacuity worse than 240")]. Hyperopia with reduced near visual function also was associated with attention deficits. Compared to emmetropic children, VA (distance, near), accommodative accuracy, and stereoacuity were significantly reduced in moderate hyperopes, with the greatest risk in those with higher hyperopia. Increasing hyperopia was associated with decreasing visual function.