Dataset Information

Association of Visual Acuity Improvement With Uncorrected Refractive Error in Patients New to Low Vision Clinics.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

There is substantial socioeconomic and individual burden from uncorrected refractive error (URE) and chronic ocular disease. Understanding the association of visual acuity (VA) reduction with URE and the adults most likely to benefit from refraction may help support clinical decision-making in ophthalmologic care and maximize patient outcomes.

Objectives

To assess the magnitude of VA improvement associated with URE among adults under ophthalmic care who obtain low vision rehabilitation (LVR) services and identify the characteristics of the patients who are most likely to experience improvement.

Design, setting, and participants

This retrospective case series assessed patients 20 years or older who were new to the LVR clinics from August 1, 2013, to December 31, 2015, and who had habitual VA between 20/40 and counting fingers (not including) and underwent refraction. Data analysis was performed from April 4, 2018, to December 20, 2019.

Exposures

Patient demographics and clinical data, including habitual and refraction VA, refraction, and disease diagnosis. Habitual VA was categorized as mild (VA worse than 20/40 and at least 20/60), moderate (VA worse than 20/60 and better than 20/200), severe (VA 20/200 or worse and better than 20/500), and profound (VA 20/500 or worse) vision impairment (VI).

Main outcomes and measures

At least 2-line VA improvement and any VA improvement (≥1-line) by refraction.

Results

Among the 2923 patients new to LVR clinics, 1773 (mean [SD] age, 70 [18.2] years; 1069 [60.3%] female) were included in these analyses. The mean habitual VA was 20/100 (mean [SD], 0.67 [0.36] logMAR). At least 2-line improvement was observed in 493 patients (27.8%), and any VA improvement was seen in 1023 patients (57.7%). At least 2-line improvement was observed in 54 patients (34.8%) with corneal disorders and was more likely seen among patients aged 40 to <65 years compared with those aged 20 to <40 years (odds ratio [OR], 1.57; 95% CI, 1.02-2.41), African American patients compared with white patients (OR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.08-1.85), or patients with moderate VI compared with mild VI (OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.07-1.72).

Conclusions and relevance

The findings suggest that URE is prevalent among patients with ocular disease and accessing LVR and that refractive evaluation should be considered for patients with ocular disease and reduced VA, especially working-age adults aged 40 to <65 years, African American patients, and those with moderate VI.

SUBMITTER: Guo X

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7243166 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeTo evaluate the outcome of a web-based digital assessment of visual acuity and refractive error, compared to a conventional supervised assessment, in keratoconus patients with complex refractive errors.Material and methodsKeratoconus patients, aged 18 to 40, with a refractive error between -6 and +4 diopters were considered eligible. An uncorrected visual acuity and an assessment of refractive error was taken web-based (index test) and by manifest refraction (reference test) by an optometrist. Corrected visual acuity was assessed with the prescription derived from both the web-based tool and the manifest refraction. Non-inferiority was defined as the 95% limits-of-agreement (95%LoA) of the differences in spherical equivalent between the index and reference test not exceeding +/- 0.5 diopters. Agreement was assessed by a Bland-Altman analyses.ResultsA total of 100 eyes of 50 patients were examined. The overall mean difference of the uncorrected visual acuity measured -0.01 LogMAR (95%LoA:-0.63-0.60). The variability of the differences decreased in the better uncorrected visual acuity subgroup (95%LoA:-0.25-0.55). The overall mean difference in spherical equivalent between the index and reference test exceeded the non-inferiority margin: -0.58D (95%LoA:-4.49-3.33, P = 0.008). The mean differences for myopic and hyperopic subjects were 0.09 diopters (P = 0.675) and -2.06 diopters (P<0.001), respectively. The corrected visual acuities attained with the web-based derived prescription underachieved significantly (0.22±0.32 logMAR vs. -0.01±0.13 LogMAR, P <0.001).ConclusionsRegarding visual acuity, the web-based tool shows promising results for remotely assessing visual acuity in keratoconus patients, particularly for subjects within a better visual acuity range. This could provide physicians with a quantifiable outcome to enhance teleconsultations, especially relevant when access to health care is limited. Regarding the assessment of the refractive error, the web-based tool was found to be inferior to the manifest refraction in keratoconus patients. This study underlines the importance of validating digital tools and could serve to increase overall safety of the web-based assessments by better identification of outlier cases.

Project description:BackgroundDeveloping countries such as Kenya still experience challenges around human resource to deliver refractive error services. However, given the burden of uncorrected refractive error, adoption of innovative and cost effective approaches is desirable. Hence this study intended to develop a task shifting framework integrated with telemedicine to potentially scale refractive error services.MethodsThis was an exploratory study conducted in four phases as follows: a scoping review of the scope of practice for ophthalmic workers in Kenya, an interview with key opinion leaders on the need for integration of public health approaches such as the vision corridors within the eye health ecosystem in Kenya and their knowledge on task shifting, and finally development and validation of a proposed task shifting framework through a Delphi technique. Purposive sampling was used to recruit key opinion leaders and data was collected via telephonic interviews. The qualitative data was analyzed thematically using NVivo Software, Version 11.ResultsThe scoping review showed that only optometrists, ophthalmologists and ophthalmic clinical officers are allowed to undertake refraction in Kenya. All of the key opinion leaders (100%) were aware of task shifting and agreed that it is suitable for adoption within the eye health ecosystem in Kenya. All of the key opinion leaders (100%) agreed that skills development for healthcare workers without prior training on eye health supervised by optometrists through telemedicine is desirable. Notwithstanding, all of the key opinion leaders (100%) agreed that integration of public health approaches such as the vision corridors across all levels of healthcare delivery channels and development of a self-assessment visual acuity tool is desirable. Finally all of the key opinion leaders (100%) agreed that task shifting is relevant for adoption within the eye health ecosystem in Kenya. The developed framework prioritized partnership, advocacy, skills development, establishment and equipping of refraction points. The proposed framework advocated for a telemedicine between professionals with conventional training and those with skills development.ConclusionTask shifting integrated with telemedicine could cost effectively scale refractive error service delivery. However, internal and external factors may hinder the success warranting the need for a multi-faceted interventions and a connection between planning and training to scale the uptake.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Digital tools provide a unique opportunity to increase access to eye care. We developed a Web-based test that measures visual acuity and both spherical and cylindrical refractive errors. This test is Conformité Européenne marked and available on the Easee website. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of this Web-based tool with traditional subjective manifest refraction in a prospective open-label noninferiority clinical trial. OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcome of a Web-based refraction compared with a manifest refraction (golden standard). METHODS:Healthy volunteers from 18 to 40 years of age, with a refraction error between -6 and +4 diopter (D), were eligible. Each participant performed the Web-based test, and the reference test was performed by an optometrist. An absolute difference in refractive error of <0.5 D was considered noninferior. Reliability was assessed by using an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Both uncorrected and corrected visual acuity were measured. RESULTS:A total of 200 eyes in 100 healthy volunteers were examined. The Web-based assessment of refractive error had excellent correlation with the reference test (ICC=0.92) and was considered noninferior to the reference test. Uncorrected visual acuity was similar with the Web-based test and the reference test (P=.21). Visual acuity was significantly improved using the prescription obtained by using the Web-based tool (P<.01). The Web-based test provided the best results in participants with mild myopia (ie, <3 D), with a mean difference of 0.02 (SD 0.49) D (P=.48) and yielding a corrected visual acuity of >1.0 in 90% (n=77) of participants. CONCLUSIONS:Our results indicate that Web-based eye testing is a valid and safe method for measuring visual acuity and refractive error in healthy eyes, particularly for mild myopia. This tool can be used for screening purposes, and it is an easily accessible alternative to the subjective manifest refraction test. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03313921; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03313921.

Project description:ImportanceUncorrected refractive error (URE) is a common cause of visual impairment, but its prevalence in groups of older adults who could be pragmatic targets for improving optical correction remains unknown.ObjectivesTo estimate the prevalence of URE in older adults, particularly in those with age-related eye disease and those who are unable to attend an outpatient clinic, and to identify the factors associated with URE.Design, setting, and participantsThis population-based cross-sectional analysis included 707 adults 78 years or older from the Alienor Study in Bordeaux, France. Data were collected from February 12, 2011, through December 21, 2012, and analyzed from November 1, 2017, through July 7, 2018.Main outcomes and measuresUncorrected refractive error was defined as the presenting distance visual acuity in the better-seeing eye improved by at least 5 letters on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study chart (≥1 line on the logMAR chart) using the best-achieved optical correction. Multivariate logistic regressions were used to determine the factors associated with URE.ResultsThe study population of 707 adults 78 years or older (64.8% women; mean [SD] age, 84.3 [4.4] years) had a prevalence of URE of 38.8% (95% CI, 35.2%-42.5%). Prevalence was high for participants with eye disease (range, 35.0% [95% CI, 28.4%-42.0%] to 44.1% [95% CI, 27.2%-62.1%], depending on the disease) and those without eye disease (30.1%; 95% CI, 24.0%-36.7%). Prevalence was higher in participants who were examined at home (because they could not come to the clinic) than in those examined at the clinic (49.4% [95% CI, 42.8%-55.9%] vs 33.5% [95% CI, 29.2%-37.9%]; P < .001). Having an eye examination performed at home (odds ratio [OR], 1.64; 95% CI, 1.13-2.37), living alone (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.47-0.90), and having the perceptions that the ophthalmologist consultation fees are too expensive (OR, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.12-3.36) and that declining visual acuity is normal with aging (OR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.04-2.08) were all associated with URE.Conclusions and relevanceThese study results show that the prevalence of URE was high in this population and suggest that preventive strategies aimed at enhancing optical correction could be directed to all older adults and to specific groups by implementing at-home eye examinations for those who have difficulties attending an outpatient clinic and by focusing on those with eye disease who probably already have a regular ophthalmologic follow-up. More studies are needed to evaluate prevalence of URE in different populations and countries with various eye care systems.