Search

Clinical relevance: Colour overlays and lenses are used to relieve symptoms in some patients diagnosed with visual stress, but evidence to support this practice is lacking. In this small randomised crossover trial, a range of colours are beneficial and precise colour specification does not enhance this effect. Background: This randomised, double-masked crossover trial aimed to test effectiveness of precisely selected lens tints for visual stress. Methods: Twenty-nine participants aged 11 to 72 (mean 30) years diagnosed with visual stress were issued with their selected coloured overlay then with tinted lenses at two colour settings. An eye examination and coloured overlay test were followed by intuitive colorimetry to select a colour to minimise symptoms (optimal tint) and the closest setting at which the symptoms returned (sub-optimal, or placebo tint). The tints were worn for one month each in randomised order. Reading speed was measured using the Wilkins Rate of Reading Test, a subjective scale was used to gauge symptoms, and the patient was asked to indicate whether one of the tints alleviated their symptoms more than the other. Results: Reading speed was significantly higher with colour than without (p < 0.001), but was similar with the overlay and both tints (p = 1.0). Discomfort/distortion rating (1–7) was lower with colour than without (p < 0.001), but no difference was found between the overlay and both tints (p > 0.1). About half (47%) of the patients preferred/strongly preferred their optimal tint, and 39% preferred/strongly preferred their sub-optimal tint, while 14% had no preference. Conclusions: While our patients read more quickly and were more comfortable when using a tint, there was no difference in outcome between the optimal and sub-optimal tints. These results suggest that for patients diagnosed with visual stress, precision tints are no more helpful than sub-optimal, placebo tints. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: This study aimed to identify clinical guidelines that provide recommendations on prescribing refractive error correction in children, evaluate the overall quality of these guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch and Evaluation II (AGREE II) tool and subsequently gain consensus on the prescribing recommendations from high‐quality guidelines using the modified Delphi technique. Methods: A comprehensive search for prescribing guidelines was conducted using databases and professional websites. The quality appraisal of eligible guidelines was undertaken by scoring the six AGREE II domains. Subsequently, the modified Delphi technique was used by 10 experts (sub‐specialist optometrists, ophthalmologists and orthoptists) to gain consensus on the prescribing recommendation statements extracted from guidelines that had been identified as high quality. Three rounds were conducted in which agreement of these statements were scored using a 9‐point Likert scale with a free‐text option for any additional comments. Results: Five eligible guidelines were identified. The AGREE II tool demonstrated that the guidelines varied substantially in quality, with only one guideline identified as being of high quality. A total of 168 prescribing statements were reviewed in the Delphi procedure. Of these, 95 statements reached expert consensus as being appropriate prescribing recommendations. Conclusion: There is significant scope for improving current guidelines for prescribing refractive error correction in children. We used the modified Delphi technique to find points of agreement on prescribing recommendations to support professionals prescribing refractive error correction in children. We recommend that further work is needed to address gaps in the guidelines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim Much existing data on childhood refractive error prevalence in India were gathered in local studies, many now dated. The aim of this study was to estimate the prevalence, severity and determinants of refractive errors among school-going children participating in a multistate vision screening programme across India. Methods In this cross-sectional study, vision screening was conducted in children aged 5-18 years at schools in five states using a pocket vision screener. Refractive error was measured using retinoscopy, and subjective refraction and was defined both by spherical equivalent (SE) and spherical ametropia, as myopia ≤-0.5 diopters (D), hyperopia ≥+1.0 D and/or astigmatism as >0.5 D. Data from the eye with less refractive error were used to determine prevalence. Results Among 2 240 804 children (50.9% boys, mean age 11.5 years, SD ±3.3), the prevalence of SE myopia was 1.57% (95% CI 1.54% to 1.60%) at 5-9 years, 3.13% (95% CI 3.09% to 3.16%) at 10-14 years and 4.8% (95% CI 4.73% to 4.86%) at 15-18 years. Hyperopia prevalence was 0.59% (95% CI 0.57% to 0.61%), 0.54% (95% CI 0.53% to 0.56%) and 0.39% (95% CI 0.37% to 0.41%), respectively. When defined by spherical ametropia, these values for myopia were 0.84%, 2.50% and 4.24%, and those for hyperopia were 2.11%, 2.41% and 2.07%, respectively. Myopia was associated with older age, female gender, private school attendance, urban location and state. The latter appeared to be driven by higher literacy rates. Conclusions Refractive error, especially myopia, is common in India. Differences in prevalence between states appear to be driven by literacy rates, suggesting that the burden of myopia may rise as literacy increases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Correction of refractive error in children is important for visual and educational development. The aim of this questionnaire‐based study was to explore paediatric refractive correction by optometrists in England. Methods: An online questionnaire was piloted and distributed to optometrists in England. The questionnaire asked about respondents' characteristics (such as type of practice), management of refractive error in 1‐ and 3‐year‐old children and sources of information used as a basis for decisions on prescribing refractive error in children. Results: Two hundred and ninety‐three questionnaires were returned, although only 139 (47%) were fully completed. In an average month, about half of respondents examined no children between 0 and 2 years of age, and about half examined no more than five children aged 3–4 years. A significant proportion indicated they would refer children aged 1 or 3 years with refractive error and no other signs or symptoms into the hospital eye service. Almost a quarter would prescribe in full or in part an isometropic refractive correction of +2.00 D for a 3‐year‐old (within the normal range) with no other signs or symptoms, suggesting a degree of unnecessary prescribing. Almost all would act in cases of clinically significant refractive error. Respondents made similar use of their colleagues, optometric or postgraduate/continuing education, professional guidance and peer‐reviewed research as sources of evidence on which to base decisions about prescribing for paediatric refractive errors. Most reported 'never' or 'rarely' using Cochrane reviews. Conclusions: These results suggest optometrists often defer management of paediatric refractive error to the hospital eye service, with implications in terms of underutilisation of community optometric expertise and burden on the National Health Service. In some cases, the results indicate a mismatch between respondents' reported management and existing guidance/guidelines on paediatric prescribing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]