Frequency of the Various Kinds of Refractive Errors

Tassman, I. S.

doi:10.1016/s0002-9394(32)92996-1

Cited by 16 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Tables 1 and 2 sheds some light on the reasons for the inconsistent results reported in previous cross-sectional studies. The results shown in Table 1 for all eyes regardless of corrected visual acuity-showing first a decrease and then an increase in the prevalence of myopia with age-are consistent with the results reported by Herrnheiser, 3 Tassman, 4 Hirsch, 5 McCarty, Livingston and Taylor 6 and Jackson. 10 In particular, they support the statement of Hirsch 5 that the increase in the prevalence of myopia in the later years is due to the development of cataracts.…”

Section: How Can We Compare the Results Of The Cross-sectional And Losupporting

confidence: 87%

“…In 1892, Herrnheiser 3 reported a prevalence of myopia of 20 per cent at ages 15 to 20 years, decreasing to less than 15 per cent at ages 46 to 70 and increasing to about 18 per cent after age 70. Other crosssectional studies have been reported by Tassman, 4 Hirsch, 5 McCarty, Livingston and Taylor, 6 Fledelius, 7 Wang and colleagues 8 and Sperduto and coworkers. 9 The results of these studies are illustrated graphically in Figure 1.…”

Section: Cross-sectional Studiesmentioning

confidence: 84%

“…Jackson, 10 in a longitudinal study, reported prevalences of myopia very similar to those reported in the cross-sectional studies of Herrnheiser 3 and Tassman. 4 In a 1950 report based on 35,570 refractions, Slataper 11 reported that mean spherical equivalent refraction changed from +0.75 D at age 40 to a peak of +2.00 D at age 64, then decreased to + 0.25 D at age 87. He suggested that the myopic shift after age 64 may have been due to lens opaci-ties that were not apparent clinically.…”

Section: Longitudinal Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Is there a hyperopic shift in myopic eyes during the presbyopic years?

Grosvenor

Skeates

1999

Clinical and Experimental Optometry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND: Studies of age-related changes in myopia during the presbyopic years have produced contradictory results. Some studies have shown that myopic eyes undergo a hyperopic shift after the age of 40 or 45 years, whereas others have provided evidence for a myopic shift. In this paper, we report the results of both a cross-sectional study and a retrospective longitudinal study of age-related changes in refraction during the presbyopic years. METHODS: In the cross-sectional study, refractive error data were tabulated for the right eyes of 559 patients over the age of 45 years, who had been examined during a 17-month period in an established optometric practice. In the longitudinal study, we tabulated refractive error data on 100 myopes, 100 hyperopes and 100 emmetropes, who had been examined for periods varying from 10 to 26 years after age 40, all of whom had 6/6 visual acuity at all examinations. RESULTS: In the cross-sectional study, the prevalence of myopia during the later presbyopic years was found to be greater when eyes with all visual acuities were included than when only eyes with acuity of 6/6 or better were considered. In the longitudinal study, it was found that almost all hyperopic and emmetropic eyes showed an age-related hyperopic shift; but only a small proportion of myopic eyes shifted toward hyperopia, with others remaining relatively stable and still others increasing in myopia. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: We suggest that when healthy myopic, hyperopic, or emmetropic eyes shift in the hyperopic direction, it is because of an age-related decrease in the gradient index of the lens; but when healthy myopic eyes shift in the myopic direction, it is because of axial elongation that more than compensates for the decrease in the gradient index of the lens. Another possible cause of a myopic shift, even for eyes having 6/6 visual acuity, is the presence of early, sub-clinical nuclear sclerosis.

show abstract

Section: How Can We Compare the Results Of The Cross-sectional And Losupporting

confidence: 87%

Section: Cross-sectional Studiesmentioning

confidence: 84%

Section: Longitudinal Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Is there a hyperopic shift in myopic eyes during the presbyopic years?

Grosvenor

Skeates

1999

Clinical and Experimental Optometry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Slataper (1950) attempted to define refractive norms, by measuring the refractive error of a cross section of patients at several ages. He found the average adult refraction to be +1.25 D. Several authors, however, believe the normal refractive limit of the eye to be 0.50 D. Nathan (1957) stated that small errors are usually taken as being any ametropia not exceeding 0.50 D in either principal meridian, and both Tassman (1932), and Jackson (1932) defined emmetropia as being 0.50 D or less. This view is in agreement with Gullstrand, who in Helmholtz's Treatise on Physiological Optics (1924) stated that the limit of normal astigmatism in the eye was 0.50 DC, and Pointer (2002) who believed that a reading addition of less than +0.50 D would be of ‘doubtful clinical necessity’.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Criteria for prescribing optometric interventions: literature review and practitioner survey

O'Leary

Evans

2003

Ophthalmic Physiologic Optic

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The core function of optometrists is the prescribing of refractive corrections, yet a literature review revealed a lack of evidence-based research on criteria for determining when a refractive correction is required. The reported criteria used by practising optometrists were investigated using a questionnaire to survey prescribing habits for borderline hypermetropia, presbyopia, astigmatism, and horizontal and vertical heterophoria. Thirty-eight questionnaires were returned and the results analysed. We calculated the 'cut off' point above which the anomaly would be corrected over 50% of the time that it was encountered. There was a large variation for each category, but it was clear that the presence or absence of symptoms was an important factor for most optometrists when deciding whether to correct a small error. It was found that for symptomatic patients, most optometrists would correct an anomaly if it reached: +1.00 D of hypermetropia, a reading addition of +0.75 D for presbyopia, -0.75 DC of astigmatism, 1.5 prism dioptres (Delta) of horizontal aligning prism, and 1 Delta of vertical dissociated heterophoria. For asymptomatic patients, optometrists would not correct any of the hypermetropic anomalies or heterophorias that were specified in our questionnaire. However most would correct a presbyopic error of +1.50 D or above, or an astigmatic error of -1.50 DC or above, even in the absence of symptoms. These results were compared with previously published guidelines.

show abstract

“…One hundred and fifty of both monozygotic and dizygotic twin pairs were chosen at random for both genders. This age group was chosen because the prevalence of myopia is known to rise in younger age groups (9). After the age of 30 years the prevalence of myopia stays stable and increases in the late fifties probably because of progressive increase in lens thickness and cataracts.…”

Section: Subjecfs and Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Heritability of defects of far vision in young adults — a twin study

Jaakko

Kaprio

Koskenvuo

et al. 1992

Scandinavian Journal of Social Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A questionnaire to study defects in far vision in the Finnish Twin Cohort Study was sent to 600 twin pairs of 30 and 31 years of age divided equally by gender and zygosity. An excess in female prevalence of defects in far vision was observed (p < 0.001). Validation of the questionnaire method to assess negative spherical equivalent of refraction was performed by asking the twins to send their last prescription for glasses. Accuracy of the questionnaire method to detect a defect in far vision was tested using a subsample of cases where actual refraction obtained from the prescription for glasses was available. This actual refraction value was compared with the individuals answers to the questions of far vision. Of the subjects 5.5% were false negatives and 1.8% of the individuals were false positives. In 152 pairs one or both twins had a defect in far vision. Under a threshold liability model, the proportion of total (phenotypic) variance in liability attributable to additive genetic effects was 0.91 in this twin data, while no evidence for effects due to dominance was found.

show abstract

Frequency of the Various Kinds of Refractive Errors

Cited by 16 publications

References 0 publications

Is there a hyperopic shift in myopic eyes during the presbyopic years?

Is there a hyperopic shift in myopic eyes during the presbyopic years?

Criteria for prescribing optometric interventions: literature review and practitioner survey

Heritability of defects of far vision in young adults — a twin study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About