Background Decreased best corrected visual acuity among children should be treated early in life, and vision screening in schoolchildren is an efficient and feasible selection for developing countries. Thus, the screening accuracy of different visual acuity tests is the key point for making vision screening strategies. The present study aims to explore the screening accuracy of uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA) and pin-hole corrected visual acuity (PCVA) using different vision chart in the detection of decreased best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) among schoolchildren. Methods Grade one primary schoolchildren in urban Lhasa with data of UCVA using tumbling E chart (UCVAE), PCVA using tumbling E chart (PCVAE), UCVA using Lea Symbols chart (UCVAL), PCVA using Lea Symbols chart (PCVAL) and BCVA using Lea Symbols chart were reviewed. Decreased BCVA was defined as BCVA≤20/32(≥0.2 logMAR). Difference, reliability, and diagnostic parameters in the detection of decreased BCVA of different visual acuity results were analyzed. Results Overall, 1672 children aged 6.58 ± 0.44 years fulfilling the criteria. The prevalence of decreased BCVA was 6.8%. Although no significant differences were found between UCVAE vs UCVAL (p = .84, paired t-test) as well as PCVAE vs PCVAL (p = .24), the ICC between them was low (0.68 and 0.57, respectively). The average difference between BCVA and UCVAE, UCVAL, PCVAE, PCVAL was logMAR -0.08 (− 0.37, 0.21), − 0.08 (− 0.29, 0.17), − 0.05 (− 0.30, 0.19), − 0.06 (− 0.23, 0.12) using Bland–Altman method. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of UCVAE, PCVAE, UCVAL, PCVAL for the detection of decreased BCVA was 0.78 (0.73, 0.84), 0.76 (0.71, 0.82), 0.95 (0.94, 0.96), 0.93 (0.91, 0.95), respectively. Conclusion Pinhole does not increase the screening accuracy of detecting decreased BCVA in grade one primary schoolchildren. Visual acuity test using Lea Symbols is more efficient than Tumbling E in the screening of that age. Trial registration Data were maily from the Lhasa Childhood Eye Study which has finished the clinical registration on (ChiCTR1900026693).
Background The aim of this study was to observe the effectiveness of botulinum toxin type A (BTA) in the treatment of intermittent exotropia (IXT) in children compared with strabismus surgery. Methods One hundred forty-four children with a clear diagnosis of IXT and an indication for surgery were eligible for inclusion. Subjects were divided into two groups based on parental decision: the BTA injection group (injection group) or the conventional surgery group (surgery group). All cases were followed up for 6 months. The primary outcome was a comparison of the success rate (deviation between − 10 and + 10 PD) between the two groups at 6 months after the initial treatment. Secondary outcomes included change in deviation, visual function, and post-surgical complications. Results Seventy-two patients were enrolled in each group. At 6-month follow-up, there was no significant difference in the success rate between the injection and surgery groups (52.8% vs 66.7%, P = 0.13; postoperative deviation − 12.22 ± 10.80 PD vs − 9.17 ± 10.30 PD, P = 0.09). The binocular Visual function, except for near stereoacuity, improved after treatment in both groups, while the fusion recovery rate was higher in the surgical group (68.1% vs 95.8%, P < 0.001). Transient complications in the injection group included diplopia, ptosis, and subconjunctival hemorrhage, whereas subconjunctival hemorrhage, conjunctival edema, foreign body sensation, pain, and diplopia were seen in the surgical group. The complications of BTA were relatively mild. Conclusions BTA is as effective as surgery in the treatment of IXT in children, but the recovery of the fusion is lower than surgery. Trial registration The study has completed the clinical registration on (ChiCTR-INR-17013777).
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.