Cargando…

Should tumbling E go out of date in amblyopia screening? Evidence from a population-based sample normative in children aged 3–4 years

AIMS: To determine a normative of tumbling E optotype and its feasibility for visual acuity (VA) assessment in children aged 3-4 years. METHODS: A cross-sectional study of 1756 children who were invited to participate in a comprehensive non-invasive eye exam. Uncorrected monocular VA with crowded tu...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Guimaraes, Sandra, Fernandes, Tiago, Costa, Patrício, Silva, Eduardo
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5969336/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28988161
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2017-310691
_version_ 1783325950744723456
author Guimaraes, Sandra
Fernandes, Tiago
Costa, Patrício
Silva, Eduardo
author_facet Guimaraes, Sandra
Fernandes, Tiago
Costa, Patrício
Silva, Eduardo
author_sort Guimaraes, Sandra
collection PubMed
description AIMS: To determine a normative of tumbling E optotype and its feasibility for visual acuity (VA) assessment in children aged 3-4 years. METHODS: A cross-sectional study of 1756 children who were invited to participate in a comprehensive non-invasive eye exam. Uncorrected monocular VA with crowded tumbling E with a comprehensive ophthalmological examination were assessed. Testability rates of the whole population and VA of the healthy children for different age subgroups, gender, school type and the order of testing in which the ophthalmological examination was performed were evaluated. RESULTS: The overall testability rate was 95% (92% and 98% for children aged 3 and 4 years, respectively). The mean VA of the first-day assessment (first-VA) and best-VA over 2 days’ assessments was 0.14 logMAR (95% CI 0.14 to 0.15) (decimal=0.72, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.73) and 0.13 logMAR (95% CI 0.13 to 0.14) (decimal=0.74, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.74). Analysis with age showed differences between groups in first-VA (F(3,1146)=10.0; p<0.001; η2=0.026) and best-VA (F(3,1155)=8.8; p<0.001; η2=0.022). Our normative was very highly correlated with previous reported HOTV-Amblyopia-Treatment-Study (HOTV-ATS) (first-VA, r=0.97; best-VA, r=0.99), with 0.8 to 0.7 lines consistent overestimation for HOTV-ATS as described in literature. Overall false-positive referral was 1.3%, being specially low regarding anisometropias of ≥2 logMAR lines (0.17%). Interocular difference ≥1 line VA logMAR was not associated with age (p=0.195). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first normative for European Caucasian children with single crowded tumbling E in healthy eyes and the largest study comparing 3 and 4 years old testability. Testability rates are higher than found in literature with other optotypes, especially in children aged 3 years, where we found 5%–11% better testability rates.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5969336
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-59693362018-06-01 Should tumbling E go out of date in amblyopia screening? Evidence from a population-based sample normative in children aged 3–4 years Guimaraes, Sandra Fernandes, Tiago Costa, Patrício Silva, Eduardo Br J Ophthalmol Clinical Science AIMS: To determine a normative of tumbling E optotype and its feasibility for visual acuity (VA) assessment in children aged 3-4 years. METHODS: A cross-sectional study of 1756 children who were invited to participate in a comprehensive non-invasive eye exam. Uncorrected monocular VA with crowded tumbling E with a comprehensive ophthalmological examination were assessed. Testability rates of the whole population and VA of the healthy children for different age subgroups, gender, school type and the order of testing in which the ophthalmological examination was performed were evaluated. RESULTS: The overall testability rate was 95% (92% and 98% for children aged 3 and 4 years, respectively). The mean VA of the first-day assessment (first-VA) and best-VA over 2 days’ assessments was 0.14 logMAR (95% CI 0.14 to 0.15) (decimal=0.72, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.73) and 0.13 logMAR (95% CI 0.13 to 0.14) (decimal=0.74, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.74). Analysis with age showed differences between groups in first-VA (F(3,1146)=10.0; p<0.001; η2=0.026) and best-VA (F(3,1155)=8.8; p<0.001; η2=0.022). Our normative was very highly correlated with previous reported HOTV-Amblyopia-Treatment-Study (HOTV-ATS) (first-VA, r=0.97; best-VA, r=0.99), with 0.8 to 0.7 lines consistent overestimation for HOTV-ATS as described in literature. Overall false-positive referral was 1.3%, being specially low regarding anisometropias of ≥2 logMAR lines (0.17%). Interocular difference ≥1 line VA logMAR was not associated with age (p=0.195). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first normative for European Caucasian children with single crowded tumbling E in healthy eyes and the largest study comparing 3 and 4 years old testability. Testability rates are higher than found in literature with other optotypes, especially in children aged 3 years, where we found 5%–11% better testability rates. BMJ Publishing Group 2018-06 2017-10-07 /pmc/articles/PMC5969336/ /pubmed/28988161 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2017-310691 Text en © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted. This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
spellingShingle Clinical Science
Guimaraes, Sandra
Fernandes, Tiago
Costa, Patrício
Silva, Eduardo
Should tumbling E go out of date in amblyopia screening? Evidence from a population-based sample normative in children aged 3–4 years
title Should tumbling E go out of date in amblyopia screening? Evidence from a population-based sample normative in children aged 3–4 years
title_full Should tumbling E go out of date in amblyopia screening? Evidence from a population-based sample normative in children aged 3–4 years
title_fullStr Should tumbling E go out of date in amblyopia screening? Evidence from a population-based sample normative in children aged 3–4 years
title_full_unstemmed Should tumbling E go out of date in amblyopia screening? Evidence from a population-based sample normative in children aged 3–4 years
title_short Should tumbling E go out of date in amblyopia screening? Evidence from a population-based sample normative in children aged 3–4 years
title_sort should tumbling e go out of date in amblyopia screening? evidence from a population-based sample normative in children aged 3–4 years
topic Clinical Science
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5969336/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28988161
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2017-310691
work_keys_str_mv AT guimaraessandra shouldtumblingegooutofdateinamblyopiascreeningevidencefromapopulationbasedsamplenormativeinchildrenaged34years
AT fernandestiago shouldtumblingegooutofdateinamblyopiascreeningevidencefromapopulationbasedsamplenormativeinchildrenaged34years
AT costapatricio shouldtumblingegooutofdateinamblyopiascreeningevidencefromapopulationbasedsamplenormativeinchildrenaged34years
AT silvaeduardo shouldtumblingegooutofdateinamblyopiascreeningevidencefromapopulationbasedsamplenormativeinchildrenaged34years