• Online Features  This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (5)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Optics/ Refraction  • Pediatric Ophthalmology  • Strabismus  • Ophthalmological Disorders, Other  • Pediatrics  • Adolescent Medicine  • Alert me on articles by topic  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Is It Reliable?

Jody Fay Leone, BAppSci(Orth)Hons; Paul Mitchell, MD, PhD, FRANZCO; Ian George Morgan, PhD; Annette Kifley, MBBS, MAppStat; Kathryn Ailsa Rose, PhD

Arch Ophthalmol. 2010;128(7):894-899. doi:10.1001/archophthalmol.2010.134

Objective  To detect significant refractive error in a population-based random cluster sample of 12-year-old schoolchildren by using sensitivity and specificity of uncorrected visual acuity (VA).

Methods  The Sydney Myopia Study randomly selected 21 secondary schools stratified by socioeconomic status. All year 7 students (mean age, 12.7 years) were invited to participate. We tested VA monocularly, unaided at 2.44 m, using a retroilluminated logMAR chart. Cycloplegic autorefraction (induced with instillation of cyclopentolate hydrochloride, 1%) was used to define clinically significant refractive error as a spherical equivalent of –1.00 diopters (D) or less for myopia; at least +2.00 D for hyperopia; and –1.00 D or less cylinder power for astigmatism.

Results  Data for both eyes were pooled for a total of 4497 observations. The sensitivity and specificity for all clinically significant refractive errors at the best VA cutoff level of 53 letters (6/6_–2) were 72.2% and 93.3%, respectively. Myopia had the highest sensitivity and specificity of any of the refractive errors for detection using VA (97.8% and 97.1%, respectively, for a 45-letter VA cutoff [6/9.5]). The best VA cutoffs for hyperopia and astigmatism were 57 (6/6₊₂) and 55 (6/6) letters, respectively, with sensitivities of 69.2% and 77.4%, respectively, and specificities of 58.1% and 75.4%, respectively.

Conclusions  In this adolescent group, a VA cutoff of 6/9.5 or less detects myopic refractive error reliably. However, there is no reliable VA cutoff for clinically significant hyperopia or astigmatism. Improved VA screening methods are required to improve detection of these conditions. Even so, with the methods described herein, the prevalence of uncorrected VA may provide a reasonably accurate estimate of the prevalence of myopia.

Author Affiliations: Discipline of Orthoptics, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Sydney Cumberland Campus, Lidcombe (Ms Leone and Dr Rose); Centre for Vision Research, Westmead Millennium Institute, Westmead Hospital, University of Sydney, Sydney (Drs Mitchell and Kifley); and ARC Centre of Excellence in Vision Science, Research School of Biology, College of Medicine, Biology, and the Environment, Australian National University, Canberra (Dr Morgan), Australia.

CiteULike    Connotea    Delicious    Digg    Facebook    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Self correction of refractive error among young people in rural China: results of cross sectional investigation
Zhang et al.
BMJ 2011;343:d4767-d4767.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Correcting refractive error in low income countries
Keay and Friedman
BMJ 2011;343:d4793-d4793.
FULL TEXT  

Refractive and Corneal Astigmatism in White School Children in Northern Ireland
O'Donoghue et al.
IOVS 2011;52:4048-4053.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Vision Screening to Detect Refractive Error
Bradfield
JAMA 2010;304:1114-1115.
FULL TEXT