• Users Online: 79
  • Print this page
  • Email this page


 
 Table of Contents  
CORRESPONDENCE
Year : 2020  |  Volume : 32  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 120-121

Reply to letter – Comparison of the pediatric vision screening program in 18 countries across five continents


1 Optometry, Faculty of Health Sciences, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Selangor, Malaysia
2 School of Optometry and Vision Science, University of New South Wales, Kensington, Australia

Date of Submission28-Oct-2019
Date of Decision19-Nov-2019
Date of Acceptance08-Dec-2019
Date of Web Publication23-Mar-2020

Correspondence Address:
Ai-Hong Chen
Optometry, Faculty of Health Sciences, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Cawangan Selangor, Kampus Puncak Alam, 42300 Bandar Puncak Alam, Selangor Darul Ehsan
Malaysia
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/JOCO.JOCO_52_20

Rights and Permissions

How to cite this article:
Chen AH, Abu Bakar NF, Arthur P. Reply to letter – Comparison of the pediatric vision screening program in 18 countries across five continents. J Curr Ophthalmol 2020;32:120-1

How to cite this URL:
Chen AH, Abu Bakar NF, Arthur P. Reply to letter – Comparison of the pediatric vision screening program in 18 countries across five continents. J Curr Ophthalmol [serial online] 2020 [cited 2020 Nov 26];32:120-1. Available from: http://www.jcurrophthalmol.org/text.asp?2020/32/1/120/281257



We thank Bušić et al. for their interest in our article. Thank you very much for the kind words. Appreciate that you highlighted two main points pertaining to vision screening that are also of our concern – near visual acuity (VA) and optotype issues.

Undeniable that the combined distance VA and near VA has been reported to be more accurate for detecting equivalent spherical refractive error as well as for the detection of amblyopia than either of the two tests alone.[1],[2] However, its efficiency for hypermetropia detection remains debatable. There is a study published by Leone et al.[3] entitled “Use of visual acuity to screen for significant refractive errors in adolescents: is it reliable?” They investigated the efficiency to detect significant refractive error using uncorrected VA. They concluded that the prevalence of uncorrected VA might provide a reasonably accurate estimate of the prevalence of myopia, but there was no reliable VA cutoff for clinically significant hyperopia or astigmatism. In addition to that, the +1.50 D test, usually as a component of the modified clinical procedure of vision screening, has been widely used for refractive screening for hyperopia.[4] On an average, 1 D more hyperopia is associated with a reduction in distance VA of 0.02 logMAR. Based on the Optometric Clinical Practice Guideline by the American Optometric Association on Hyperopia, hyperopia may be categorized based on the etiology (simple hyperopia [biological variation], pathological hyperopia [anatomical abnormality], and functional hyperopia [paralysis of accommodation]) or the degree of refractive error (low hyperopia: +2.00 D or less, moderate hyperopia: +2.25 to +5.00 D, and high hyperopia: +5.00 D or more). Latent hyperopia is that which can be overcome by accommodation. Absolute hyperopia cannot be compensated with accommodation. The total magnitude of hyperopia is the sum of absolute and latent hyperopia. The effect of hyperopia on VA depends on the magnitude of the hyperopia and the ability to overcome the hyperopia. Although VA may be reduced at times, especially at near, the measure of VA in patients with latent hyperopia is usually normal. In patients with absolute hyperopia, the reduction in VA at both distance and near is proportionate to the degree of absolute hyperopia. Screening by VA testing is likely to identify only hyperopia associated with high astigmatism and/or amblyopia. Persons with simple hyperopia are usually able to obtain good VA through active accommodation. For your information, the above point was not the main emphasis in our [Table 4]. We aimed to highlight the variation issue in the application of distance VA testing in [Table 4]. Different types of VA charts and different testing distance were implemented in most of the countries. Both challenges were elaborated accordingly in the article.{Table 4}

Regarding the issue on optotype, may we draw your attention to the discussion section under the second heading on “Limitation in implementation….” and the last few sentences. The optotype issue was addressed, and kindly refer to “The optotype selections, heights and spacing and designs deviated from standard guidelines.[68] …”. Further explanation on the recommended optotype selection could be obtained from the reference no. 68 as indicated in the article.

Nevertheless, we believe that this communication will benefit our readers to understand the current challenges of pediatric vision screening program. At the same time, the constructive feedback gives us valuable tips too. Hopefully, we will continue to pursue our interest in enhancing pediatric vision screening worldwide.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
  References Top

1.
Jin P, Zhu J, Zou H, Lu L, Zhao H, Li Q, et al. Screening for significant refractive error using a combination of distance visual acuity and near visual acuity. PLoS One 2015;10:e0117399.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Bušić M, Bjeloš M, Petrovečki M, Kuzmanović Elabjer B, Bosnar D, Ramić S, et al. Zagreb amblyopia preschool screening study: Near and distance visual acuity testing increase the diagnostic accuracy of screening for amblyopia. Croat Med J 2016;57:29-41.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Leone JF, Mitchell P, Morgan IG, Kifley A, Rose KA. Use of visual acuity to screen for significant refractive errors in adolescents: Is it reliable? Arch Ophthalmol 2010;128:894-9.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
American Optometric Association. Optometric Clinical Practice Guideline: Care of the Patient with Hyperopia. American Optometric Association; 1997. Available from: http://www.aoa.org/documents/CPG-16.pdf. [Last accessed on 2019 Nov 18].  Back to cited text no. 4
    




 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
  In this article
References

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed392    
    Printed25    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded59    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal


[TAG2]
[TAG3]
[TAG4]