Amblyopia

Prevention of Amblyopia and the Concept of Cure

Amblyopia is used as a comprehensive term for unexplained reduction of visual acuity, usually unilateral. As long as the visual deficit is monocular the visual loss is more of a potential problem than an actual handicap. Amblyopia is one of the most common causes of visual deficit in childhood, and since it is treatable, at least in children, considerable efforts have been made to detect it as early in life as possible. Screening programmes for amblyopia among preschool and school children have been widely organized throughout the world, although questions remain about their utility. This study evaluated amblyopia screening, focussing on some essential points that need thorough consideration before a screening programme is started. We also try to demonstrate some of the pros and cons of a screening system.

Preschool vision screening: rationale, methodology and outcome

Although population outcome studies support the utility of preschool screening for reducing the prevalence of amblyopia, fundamental questions remain about how best to do such screening. Infant photoscreening to detect refractive risk factors prior to onset of esotropia and amblyopia seems promising, but our current understanding of the natural history of these conditions is limited, thus limiting the prophylactic potential of early screening. Screening for strabismic, refractive and ocular disease conditions directly associated with amblyopia is more clearly proven, but the diversity of equipment, methods and subject populations studied make it difficult to draw precise summary conclusions at this point about the efficacy of photoscreening. Sensory-based testing of preschool-age children exhibits a similar combination of promise and limitations. The visual acuity tests most widely used for this purpose are prone to problems of testability and false negatives. Moreover, the utility of random-dot stereograms has been confused by misapplication, and new small-target binocularity tests, while attractive, are as yet inadequately field-proven. The evaluation standard for any screening modality is treatment outcome. However, variables in amblyopia classification and quantitative definition differences, timing of presentation, nonequivalent treatment comparisons, and compliance variability have been uncontrolled in virtually all extant studies of amblyopia treatment outcome, making it difficult or impossible to evaluate either the relative efficacy of different treatment regimens for amblyopia or the effects of age on treatment outcome within the preschool age range. The latter issue is a central one, since existence of such an age effect is the primary rationale for screening at younger rather than older preschool ages. The relatively low prevalence of amblyopia makes it difficult to achieve a high screening yield in terms of predictive value, but functionally increasing prevalence by selective screening of high risk populations causes further problems. Unless a "supertest" can be devised, with very high sensitivity and specificity, health policy decisions will be required to determine which of these two characteristics should be emphasized in screening programs. Performance of screening tests can be optimized, however, with adequate training, perhaps via instructional videotapes.

Vision screening in preschool children: comparison of orthoptists and clinical medical officers as primary screeners

OBJECTIVE

To see if there were differences in referral rates and abnormalities detected from two areas that were operating different preschool vision screening programmes.

DESIGN

Cohort study using case notes of referrals.

SETTING

Community based secondary referral centres in the county of Avon.

PATIENTS

263 referrals from a child population of 7105 in Southmead district, an area that used orthoptists as primary vision screeners; 111 referrals from a child population of 2977 in Weston-super-Mare, an area that used clinical medical officers for screening.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Amblyopia and squint detection rates, together with false positive referral rates.

RESULTS

The amblyopia detection rate in Southmead district was significantly higher than in Weston-super-Mare (11/1000 children v 5/1000), as was the detection rate of squint (11/1000 v 3/1000). However, the false positive referral rate from Southmead was significantly lower than that from Weston-super-Mare (9/1000 v 23/1000).

CONCLUSION

Preschool vision screening using orthoptists as primary screeners offers a more effective method of detecting visual abnormalities than using clinical medical officers.

Preschool vision screening

Although a good case for preschool screening for vision defects can be made there is very little evidence that existing programmes are effective in practice. A comparative trial of three different methods of preschool vision screening is described. Some 7000 children initially aged 5 months (younger cohorts) and 30 months (older cohorts) in three matched areas entered the trial during 1987. During 18 months of follow up new visual and ocular defects among these children were ascertained through ophthalmology outpatients and from optician records. Screening at 35 months by an orthoptist based in the community is superior to conventional health visitor surveillance at 30 months and to an agreed programme of primary care screening for squint at 30-36 months as judged by screening sensitivity (100% v 50% v 50%) and the incidence of treated target conditions (17 v 3 v 5 per 1000 person years). A notable feature in the area served by the orthoptist is that 13 children received treatment for straight eyed visual acuity loss from among 1000 children whereas there were no such cases among 2500 in the comparison areas. In the younger cohorts (that is, screening at age 5-9 months) all three programmes showed equally poor results, only one of the eight treated target conditions arising from all 3500 younger children being screen detected.