Search

Purpose: Controversy exists regarding the influence of peripheral visual experience on the onset and progression of childhood myopia. This longitudinal, observational study evaluated the relationship between relative peripheral refraction (RPR) and changes in refractive error and axial length (AL) over 12 months in White children aged 6–7 and 12–13 years with a range of baseline refractive errors. Methods: Cycloplegic baseline autorefraction at horizontal retinal eccentricities of 0° and ±30° were recorded with the Shin‐Nippon NVision‐K 5001 while AL was measured using the Zeiss IOLMaster 700. Measurements were repeated after 12 months on a subgroup. Refractive data were transposed into power vectors as mean spherical equivalent (M), J0 and J45. RPR was calculated by subtracting central from peripheral measurements. Participants were defined as myopic (M ≤ −0.50 D), premyopic (−0.50 D < M ≤ +0.75 D), emmetropic (+0.75 D < M < +2.00 D) or hyperopic (M ≥ +2.00 D). Results: Data were collected from 222 and 245 participants aged 6–7 and 12–13 years, respectively. Myopic eyes demonstrated, on average, more hyperopic RPR. Emmetropes and premyopes displayed emmetropic RPR, and hyperopes showed a myopic RPR. Fifty‐six 6‐ to 7‐year‐olds and seventy 12‐ to 13‐year‐olds contributed 12‐month repeated measures. Longitudinal data demonstrated a significant relationship between a more hyperopic RPR in the nasal retina and greater short‐term axial elongation in teens with myopia at baseline (β = 0.69; p = 0.04). Each dioptre of relative peripheral hyperopia in the nasal retina was associated with an additional 0.10 mm (95% CI: 0.02–0.18 mm) annual increase in AL. Conclusions: Hyperopic RPR in the nasal retina of myopic children is indicative of increased risk for rapid axial elongation and may be a useful metric to support decision‐making in myopia management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To compare real‐world measures of illumination obtained with the Actiwatch‐2 and Clouclip‐M2 with 'gold standard' photometry measures and to evaluate the ability of Actiwatch‐2 to correctly identify photometer‐defined conditions: scotopic (≤0.01 lux), mesopic (0.02–3 lux), indoor photopic (>3–1,000 lux) and outdoor photopic (>1,000 lux); and Clouclip to correctly identify photometer‐defined conditions within its operating range (>1 lux). Inter‐device reliability of Clouclip for illumination and viewing distance measures was also investigated. Methods: A Hagner‐S2 photometer was used as reference. Measures of illumination were obtained from a range of real‐world conditions. To investigate inter‐device reliability, five Clouclips were simultaneously exposed to varied light conditions and object distances. Results: Strong correlations existed between illumination measured with the photometer and both Actiwatch‐2 (ρ = 0.99, p < 0.0001) and Clouclip (ρ = 0.99, p < 0.0001). However, both devices underestimated illumination compared to the photometer; disparity increased with increasing illumination and was greater for Actiwatch‐2 than Clouclip measures. Actiwatch‐2 successfully categorised illumination level (scotopic, mesopic, indoor and outdoor photopic) in 71.2% of cases. Clouclip successfully categorised illumination levels as scotopic/mesopic (≤3 lux) and indoor and outdoor photopic in 100% of cases. Mean differences and limits of agreement (LOA) were 430.92 ± 1,828.74 and 79.35 ± 407.33 lux, between the photometer and Actiwatch‐2 and photometer and Clouclip, respectively. The Intra‐class Correlation Coefficients for illumination and viewing distance measured with five Clouclips were 0.85 and 0.96, respectively. Conclusion: These data illustrate that different Clouclip devices produce comparable measures of viewing distance and illumination in real‐world settings. Both Actiwatch‐2 and Clouclip underestimate illumination in the field compared to gold standard photometer measures. The disparity increases at higher levels of illumination and the discrepancy was greater for Actiwatch‐2 measures. For researchers interested in categorising light exposure, Clouclip classifies illumination levels >2 lux more accurately than Actiwatch‐2 but cannot discriminate between scotopic and low mesopic light. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction Methods Results Conclusion This work aimed to establish the largest UK and Ireland consensus on myopia management in children and young people (CYP).A modified Delphi consensus was conducted with a panel of 34 optometrists and ophthalmologists with expertise in myopia management.Two rounds of voting took place and 131 statements were agreed, including that interventions should be discussed with parents/carers of all CYP who develop myopia before the age of 13 years, a recommendation for interventions to be publicly funded for those at risk of fast progression and high myopia, that intervention selection should take into account the CYP's hobbies and lifestyle and that additional training for eye care professionals should be available from non‐commercial sources. Topics for which published evidence is limited or lacking were areas of weaker or no consensus. Modern myopia management contact and spectacles are suitable first‐line treatments. The role and provision of low‐concentration atropine needs to be reviewed once marketing authorisations and funding decisions are in place. There is some evidence that a combination of low‐concentration atropine with an optical intervention can have an additive effect; further research is needed. Once an intervention is started, best practice is to monitor non‐cycloplegic axial length 6 monthly.Research is needed to identify those at risk of progression, the long‐term effectiveness of individual and combined interventions, and when to discontinue treatment when myopia has stabilised. As further evidence continues to emerge, this consensus work will be repeated to ensure it remains relevant. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]