Hyperopia Is Not Causally Associated With a Major Deficit in Educational Attainment

Application of mendelian randomization in ocular diseases: a review

Ocular disorders can significantly lower patients' quality of life and impose an economic burden on families and society. However, for the majority of these diseases, their prevalence and mechanisms are yet unknown, making prevention, management, and therapy challenging. Although connections between exposure factors and diseases can be drawn through observational research, it is challenging to rule out the interference of confounding variables and reverse causation. Mendelian Randomization (MR), a method of research that combines genetics and epidemiology, has its advantage to solve this problem and thus has been extensively utilized in the etiological study of ophthalmic diseases. This paper reviews the implementation of MR in the research of ocular diseases and provides approaches for the investigation of related mechanisms as well as the intervention strategies.

Effectiveness of the Spot Vision Screener using updated 2021 AAPOS guidelines

PURPOSE

To evaluate the Spot Vision Screener according to updated 2021 AAPOS Vision Screening Committee guidelines for instrument-based pediatric vision screen validation.

METHODS

As part of an IRB-approved ongoing prospective study, children were screened with the Spot prior to a complete examination.

RESULTS

Spot screening was successful in 1,036 of 1,090 children (95%). Forty-eight percent of participants were referred for further screening using the Spot manufacturer guidelines, and 40% of all children were found to have a 2021 amblyopia risk factor or visually significant refractive error by gold standard examination. The Spot recommendation compared reasonably well to the 2021 criteria, with an overall sensitivity of 0.88 and a specificity of 0.78. Applying updated guidelines to the Spot for hyperopia, anisometropia, and astigmatism yielded moderate-to-poor sensitivity (0.27-0.77) but excellent specificity (>0.9). The area under the curve of the receiver operating characteristic analysis demonstrates overall good prediction performance for the Spot for each diagnosis-myopia, hyperopia, astigmatism, anisometropia (range, 0.87-0.97). Results of our study suggest increasing the instrument referral criterion for astigmatism from 1.5 D (manufacturer thresholds of the screener used in this study) to 2 D in older children. Decreasing the anisometropia cut-off from 1 D to 0.75 D would improve sensitivity from 0.59 to >0.8.

CONCLUSIONS

In our study population, the overall predictive ability of the Spot is good, with a sensitivity of 0.88 and a specificity of 0.78. We recommend specific device refractive referral criteria to maximize screening effectiveness using the updated AAPOS guidelines.

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.