https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7136-6278
Figures
Abstract
Purpose
The aim of our study was to determine the prevalence of amblyopia risk factors in children visiting the American University of Beirut Medical Center (AUBMC) using automated vision screening.
Methods
This was a hospital-based screening of 1102 children aged between 2 and 6 years. Vision screening was performed using PlusoptiX S12 over 2 years (2018–2020). The need for referral to a pediatric ophthalmologist was based on the amblyopia risk factors set forth by the American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus. Referred patients underwent a comprehensive eye examination.
Results
A total of 1102 children were screened, 63 were referred for amblyopia risk factors (5.7%); 37/63 (59%) underwent comprehensive eye examination and 73% were prescribed glasses. Of the non-referred group of children, 6.35% had astigmatism, 6.25% were hyperopic and 3.27% were myopic. The refractive errors observed among the examined patients were distributed as follows: 41% astigmatism, 51% hyperopia, and 8% myopia; amblyopia was not detected. Refractive amblyopia risk factors were associated with the presence of systemic disorders. Bland-Altman plots showed most of the differences to be within limits of agreement.
Citation: Al-Haddad C, El Moussawi Z, Hoyeck S, Mehanna C-J, El Salloukh NA, Ismail K, et al. (2021) Amblyopia risk factors among pediatric patients in a hospital-based setting using photoscreening. PLoS ONE 16(7): e0254831. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0254831
Editor: Ahmed Awadein, Cairo University Kasr Alainy Faculty of Medicine, EGYPT
Received: January 11, 2021; Accepted: July 4, 2021; Published: July 29, 2021
Copyright: © 2021 Al-Haddad et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files.
Funding: This study was funded by the Medical Practice Plan (MPP) of the American University of Beirut awarded to CA (https://www.aub.edu.lb/fm/medicalresearch/Pages/ResearchFunding.aspx). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
Early childhood vision screening is recommended for detecting preventable and treatable vision disorders [1–3]. Amblyopia is a common cause of decreased vision in children [4–11]. Early diagnosis through vision screening, referrals for complementary examinations and early interventions lead to better visual outcomes [4]. The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends vision screening at least once in all children aged 3 to 5 years to detect amblyopia or its risk factors [2]. The American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO) and the American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus (AAPOS) [12] recommend vision screening during the preschool years [3]. Instrument-based screening is recommended for all children aged 12 months and above undergo [3, 13]. In one study, photoscreening was superior to optotype-based screening for children between the ages of 3 and 6 years [14]. In addition, children screened and referred before the age of 2 years were more likely to reach a visual acuity of 20/40, as compared to those screened after age 2 [15].
One of the recent automated screeners is PlusoptiX; it is a digital portable photoscreener that gives a non-cycloplegic autorefraction of undilated pupils [16]. PlusoptiX has shown a sensitivity ranging from 92.86% to 100% and a specificity ranging from 49.57% to 94.49% in the detection of refractive amblyopia risk factors [17]. A recent study compared three photoscreening devices, iScreen, PlusoptiX and SPOT photoscreeners: sensitivity overall for detection of amblyogenic factors ranged from 72% (iScreen) to 84% (PlusoptiX), and specificity ranged from 68% (SPOT) to 94% (PlusoptiX) [18].
In studies from several parts of the world, the prevalence of refractive errors in children showed a wide range [17, 19]. The subtypes of refractive risk factors were: 3.5% to 30.5% for hyperopia, 4.9% to 53.1% for myopia and 22% to 25.5% for astigmatism [19–25].
There is scarce literature on the prevalence of refractive amblyopia risk factors in the Middle East, and more specifically in Lebanon. The aim of our study was to detect refractive amblyopia risk factors in children visiting the American University of Beirut Medical Center for a routine check-up at the pediatrics clinics, using the PlusoptiX S12 photoscreener, and to correlate results with age, sex, systemic disorders and prematurity.
Methods
Population
This was a hospital-based screening of 1102 children, aged 2 to 6 years, visiting the general pediatric clinics of the American University of Beirut Medical Center (Out-Patient Division and private clinics). The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the American University of Beirut Medical Center (IRB ID: OPH.CH.20) and was conducted over a 2 year period from 2018 to 2020. Written informed consent was obtained from parents or legal guardians. The study adhered to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Demographic data were collected from the parents, including date of birth, prematurity, presence of any known eye disease, and past medical history of any systemic disease.
Vision screening
Vision screening was performed by personnel who had received a three-hour-training session on the use of the PlusoptiX S12 photoscreener (PlusoptiX GmbH, Atlanta, GA). Performing vision screening was simple: the camera was set off by pulling the trigger. The sound attracted attention and both eyes were captured on screen in a white rectangle and measurement was automatically registered. Screening results were immediately displayed on the screen and data on refraction (sphere, cylinder and axis) of each eye were recorded. Spherical equivalent (SE) refraction in diopters (D) was then calculated. If the primary screening attempt failed, screening was repeated up to three times.
If the screening revealed refractive errors, subjects were referred to the pediatric ophthalmology clinic (author CA) according to the age-based criteria for amblyopia risk factor detection guidelines set by the American Association of Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus Vision Screening Committee (Table 1) [26].
Eye examination
To confirm the results of the vision screening when positive, a comprehensive pediatric eye examination was performed by the same attending pediatric ophthalmologist (author CA). This entailed age-dependent visual acuity testing: “central steady & maintained” testing for preverbal children and vision charts (Allen pictures and Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study charts (EDTRS)) for verbal children. Anterior segment examination, motility examination for any eye misalignment, and posterior segment examination using indirect ophthalmoscopy were performed. Cycloplegic manual retinoscopy was done to detect refractive errors (30 minutes after pupillary dilation with Mydriacyl 1% and Cyclopentolate 1%, applied twice 10 minutes apart; in this clinic, we use two sets as a standard especially with darker irides). Significant astigmatism was defined as cylindrical power of 1D or more with the main refractive error being the cylinder. Those reported with hyperopia and myopia had mainly spherical refractive error (>+1D or <-1D, respectively).
Statistical analysis
After obtaining complete data, statistical analysis was performed using SPSS (Statistical Packages for Social Sciences) v 24, where frequencies and descriptive statistics were computed. Correlations were established using independent t-tests, bivariate (Pearson) correlation, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) score. Significance level was set at a p-value of less than 0.05. Bland-Altman analysis was performed by calculating the difference between spherical equivalent values obtained by PlusoptiX and by cycloplegic refraction for each eye, plotted against the average of the two values. Horizontal dashed lines were drawn at the 95% limits of agreement, which were defined as the mean difference ±1.96 x standard deviation of the differences.
Results
Characteristics of study population
A total of 1102 children aged 2 to 6 years were screened using the PlusoptiX S12 vision screener. Mean age of the studied population was 4.13 ± 1.44 years, with 511 females (46%). Twenty-one of included subjects (1.9%) were born prematurely (gestational age below 37 weeks), and 93 (8.4%) had associated systemic disorders. The mean SE refraction was 0.39 ± 0.74D for right eyes, and 0.40 ± 0.71D for left eyes. The prevalence of refractive amblyopia risk factors was 5.7%, where 63 subjects were referred for full eye examination according to the AAPOS age-appropriate refractive error targets (Table 1).
Among the 63 subjects who met the criteria for referral, 37 (59%) were examined at the pediatric ophthalmology clinic of our department (by author CA). The rest (41%) were lost to follow up after multiple attempts to schedule an ophthalmology appointment.
Mean age of the referred group was 4.24±1.48 years, with no statistically significant difference compared to that of the whole population studied: 28 were females (44.5%),1 was premature (1.6%) and 14 had associated systemic disorders (22.2%). According to the screening exam with the automated vision screener, mean SE was 0.75 ± 1.68D for right eyes, and 0.74 ± 1.67D for left eyes, similar to those for the whole group (Table 2). After cycloplegic refraction for this group, the detected refractive errors were as follows: 41% astigmatism (mean cylinder 2.04±0.85D), 51% hyperopia (mean SE +3.28±2.79D), and 8% myopia (mean SE -2.25±1.89D). Of the examined subjects, 27 (73%) were prescribed glasses. Of the non-referred group of children with minimal refractive errors not reaching the AAPOS threshold values, automated vision screening revealed astigmatism in 66 (6.35%) with mean cylinder of 1.24 ± 0.27D, hyperopia in 65 (6.25%) with mean SE of +1.31 ± 0.42D and myopia in 34 (3.27%) with mean SE of -1.42 ± 0.44D.
Comparison between the plusoptiX and cycloplegic retinoscopy
The plusoptiX and CR results are compared in Table 3. For the whole examined population (n = 37), a significant difference was seen for the sphere (p<0.001) and the mean SE (p = 0.02), with a difference of 1.21 ± 2.61D and 0.54 ± 2.48D, respectively. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) score of the SE between Plusoptix and cycloplegic refraction was 0.70. Out of the 37 examined children, 19 had hyperopia, 15 had astigmatism and 3 subjects were myopic. When looking at each refractive error separately, the difference between cycloplegic refraction and PlusoptiX was only significant for the sphere and SE of the hyperopic population, with a difference of 2.26 ± 1.30D and 1.84 ± 1.40D, respectively (p<0.05 for both). Screening results and cycloplegic refraction were similar for myopia and astigmatism. In addition, the Bland-Altman plot was generated to further assess the agreement in measured spherical equivalent between PlusoptiX and CR for each eye (Fig 1). According to this analysis, the scatters tended to be within the limits of agreement.
The difference between the mean spherical equivalent as measured by PlusoptiX and mean spherical equivalent as measured by cycloplegic retinoscopy are plotted on the y-axis, and the mean spherical equivalent value obtained by the two measurements on the x-axis. Dashed lines represent the upper and lower 95% limits of agreement.
Correlation between refractive errors and risk factors, age, and sex
To assess correlation between each demographic factors and the prevalence of amblyopia risk factors, a bivariate (Pearson) correlation was performed. A statistically significant correlation was seen between systemic disorders (mostly hematologic, neurologic, cardiac and metabolic disorders) and prevalence of amblyopia risk factors with p<0.001; however this correlation was a weak one (Pearson correlation = 0.13). On the other hand, no significant correlation was seen between prematurity and referral in our small cohort (p = 0.86). There was no significant correlation between detection of amblyopia risk factors and age (p = 0.63), nor with gender (p = 0.76). The distribution of refractive errors varied with age, this is demonstrated in Fig 2. Hyperopia was the most commonly encountered refractive error overall especially in the older age group.
Discussion
This study reported amblyopia risk factors in Lebanese children aged 2 to 6 years in a hospital-based setting using automated vision screening. The referral rate for full eye exam was 5.7%. Out of those examined, 73% needed glasses. The refractive amblyopia risk factors as detected by the PlusoptiX screener were myopia in 0.3% hyperopia in 1.7% and astigmatism in 1.4%. Among the referred and examined subjects, the distribution of refractive errors as confirmed by cycloplegic refraction was: 8% myopia, 51% hyperopia and 41% astigmatism. The prevalence of refractive amblyopia risk factors was not significantly correlated with age, gender or prematurity, but with the presence of systemic disorders.
The PlusoptiX vision screener has proven to be sensitive and specific in detecting amblyopia risk factors and refractive errors [3]. Arnold et al reported sensitivity of PlusoptiX at 84%, and its specificity at 94% [18]. A more recent study reviewed 18 papers: the sensitivity ranged between 47% and 99%, and specificity from 49% to 100% [27]. The referral rate in our present study was 5.7% of those screened, very close to that determined in a similar study from the United Kingdom (5.6%) [28]. The referral rate in Hawaii using the same screener was however higher (8%), and that reported from China was lower (3.9%) [17, 19].
The prevalence of refractive amblyopia risk factors reported in the literature varies by the cut-off limits followed, method used, region where the study was performed, and age group studied. In Lebanon, only a single previous report looked into amblyopia risk factors in a cohort of 935 school children between the age of 5 and 18 years [29]. Visual acuity was solely tested, and “ametropia” was noted in 15.7% of the screened population, 70% of whom were unaware of their visual defect [29]. The prevalence of ametropia detected in our screened population was lower; however, our age group was narrower, and we had more stringent criteria based on automated vision screening, and not only subjective visual acuity which may be inaccurate in young subjects. An interesting study conducted in Australia looked at a cohort of predominantly Lebanese school children 10 to 15 years of age [30]. They aimed at detecting the prevalence rate of refractive errors among children of Middle Eastern descent (85.3% were Lebanese), raised and living in Australia [30]. This was the only previous study looking at refractive errors in a Lebanese cohort. A non-cycloplegic auto-refraction was conducted for 354 schoolchildren using the autorefractor NVision-K5001: 14.7% of the studied subjects were found to have myopia (sphere ≤-0.75D), and 21.8% had hyperopia (sphere ≥+1.50D) [30]. These numbers were closer to those of Australian origin than to those reported from the Middle Eastern region. The authors concluded that the prevalence of refractive errors tended to resemble that of the host country, suggesting that lifestyle and the education system had a higher impact on refractive errors than genetic and ethnic background [30]. The prevalence of refractive amblyopia risk factors in the current study are lower than those detected in this Lebanese cohort living in Melbourne, albeit with a different age group.
In Middle Eastern countries, the reported prevalence rates in general were higher than our current study. In Iranian children aged 7 to 12 years, prevalence rates of 4.9% for myopia, 3.5% for hyperopia and 22.6% for astigmatism were reported [20]. In Saudi Arabia, the prevalence rate of hyperopia was 1.5%, myopia 0.7% and astigmatism 25.3% [31]. In Jordan, children 12 to 17 years of age were screened; referral rate after vision screening was 25%, quite higher than ours at 5.7% [32]. The distribution of errors differed from ours with a higher prevalence of all refractive errors, mainly myopia, as compared to a dominance of hyperopia in our studied population. This can be attributed to the difference in the studied age groups, as hyperopia is more prevalent in younger children while myopia tends to increase with age.
The Vision In Preschoolers (VIP) study screened preschool children using several methods, including autorefractors and non-cycloplegic retinoscopy [33]. Hyperopia was seen in 2.5%, myopia in 0.1% and astigmatism in 4.4% [33] similar to our cohort. Another study in pre-school children (3 to 5 years of age) using the Retinomax autorefractor showed a referral rate of 8.9% and 74% of the examined patients needed glasses [34]. In the Baltimore Pediatric Eye Disease Study, myopia was found in 0.7% and hyperopia in 8.9% [35]. In Europe, the prevalence of the different types of refractive errors were higher than ours [36–38]. The prevalence of myopia is higher in the Far East as was demonstrated by the Strabismus, Amblyopia, and Refractive error in young Singaporean children (STARS) study in Singapore [39]. The prevalence rates were 11% for myopia, much higher than our present study, 1.4% for hyperopia, very close to the rate reported in this study and 8.6% for astigmatism, also higher than what we reported [39]. They concluded that change in prevalence may be influenced by ocular development, environment and testability of myopia [39]. A further study in Bhutan revealed a presence of 6.6% for myopia and 2.2% for hyperopia [40]. In India, a systematic review of 12 studies reported that the prevalence of refractive errors in children ≤15 years of age was: 1.4% for myopia, 4% for hyperopia and 1.1% for astigmatism [41]. In Chinese children of similar age to ours, prevalence rates were higher [42].
Our present study showed that there was no significant correlation between rate of referral and neither age nor gender. Hyperopia was the most prevalent refractive error in our examined population. One explanation is that young subjects with hyperopia are usually asymptomatic, and thus hyperopia goes mostly undetected in children. The prevalence of amblyopia risk factors and the distribution of refractive errors in the pediatric population vary widely in the reported literature. This is attributed to the absence of unified cut-off limits used to diagnose the different refractive errors. Add to that the differences in ethnic backgrounds of the study populations, age groups and the instruments/ methodology used. This precluded head-to-head comparison of our present work to those from the US, Europe, Asia and the rest of the Middle East.
This study has several strengths; it was conducted on a large sample size with over 1000 children screened. In addition, it was among the first studies to report refractive amblyopia risk factors in the Lebanese pediatric population. It thus provides an important reference for Lebanese pediatric ophthalmologists, and for international ophthalmologists to compare to. Referred patients underwent a full cycloplegic eye examination by the same pediatric ophthalmologist and the AAPOS Vision Screening Committee guidelines were followed for age-based refractive error targets. This study was conducted for a hospital-based population of Lebanese children. This factor, in addition to the limited sample size, served as a limitation, as the detected rates could not be generalized to the community. Another limitation was the low response rate of referral. Add to that, the PlusoptiX detects hyperopia with less sensitivity than it detects myopia and astigmatism (16). Thus, some false negative results might have been present but not detected. Also, we focused on a narrow age group within the sensitive period of visual development where the condition is amenable to patch therapy/ refractive adaptation and at an age where amblyopia has not yet become entrenched. The rates of systemic associated disorders among the referred subjects were higher than that in the non-referred group probably reflecting that our population came from a tertiary referral center. A wide difference was observed between the mean spherical equivalent of the photoscreener and cycloplegic refraction explained by the use of cycloplegia uncovering more hyperopia. A future community and school-based similar study including a wider age range is underway to reflect the true prevalence in our country.
In summary, using an automated vision screener in a hospital-based cohort of children aged 2 to 6 years, the prevalence of refractive amblyopia risk factors was 5.7%. Hyperopia was the most common refractive error, followed by astigmatism, then myopia. Age, gender, and prematurity were not found to significantly affect the referral rate, while a weak correlation was seen between systemic disorders and an increased risk of amblyopia risk factors.
References
- 1. Zhang X, Wang Y, Huang D, Sun Q, Zhao X, Ding H, et al. Prevalence of reduced visual acuity among preschool children in eastern China and comparison at a 5-year interval. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2018;46(9):994–1001. Epub 2018/05/29. pmid:29802764.
- 2. Force USPST. Vision screening for children 1 to 5 years of age: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation statement. Pediatrics. 2011;127(2):340–6. Epub 2011/02/02. pmid:21282267.
- 3. Wallace DK, Morse CL, Melia M, Sprunger DT, Repka MX, Lee KA, et al. Pediatric Eye Evaluations Preferred Practice Pattern(R): I. Vision Screening in the Primary Care and Community Setting; II. Comprehensive Ophthalmic Examination. Ophthalmology. 2018;125(1):P184–P227. Epub 2017/11/08. pmid:29108745.
- 4. Moghaddam AA, Kargozar A, Zarei-Ghanavati M, Najjaran M, Nozari V, Shakeri MT. Screening for amblyopia risk factors in pre-verbal children using the Plusoptix photoscreener: a cross-sectional population-based study. Br J Ophthalmol. 2012;96(1):83–6. Epub 2011/04/26. pmid:21515564.
- 5. Pai AS, Rose KA, Leone JF, Sharbini S, Burlutsky G, Varma R, et al. Amblyopia prevalence and risk factors in Australian preschool children. Ophthalmology. 2012;119(1):138–44. Epub 2011/10/04. pmid:21963268.
- 6. Afsari S, Rose KA, Gole GA, Philip K, Leone JF, French A, et al. Prevalence of anisometropia and its association with refractive error and amblyopia in preschool children. The British journal of ophthalmology. 2013;97(9):1095–9. Epub 2013/04/25. pmid:23613508.
- 7. Aldebasi YH. Prevalence of amblyopia in primary school children in Qassim province, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Middle East African journal of ophthalmology. 2015;22(1):86–91. Epub 2015/01/28. pmid:25624680.
- 8. Fu J, Li SM, Liu LR, Li JL, Li SY, Zhu BD, et al. Prevalence of amblyopia and strabismus in a population of 7th-grade junior high school students in Central China: the Anyang Childhood Eye Study (ACES). Ophthalmic epidemiology. 2014;21(3):197–203. Epub 2014/04/20. pmid:24742059.
- 9. Ganekal S, Jhanji V, Liang Y, Dorairaj S. Prevalence and etiology of amblyopia in Southern India: results from screening of school children aged 5–15 years. Ophthalmic epidemiology. 2013;20(4):228–31. Epub 2013/07/20. pmid:23865603.
- 10. Oscar A, Cherninkova S, Haykin V, Aroyo A, Levi A, Marinov N, et al. Amblyopia screening in Bulgaria. Journal of pediatric ophthalmology and strabismus. 2014;51(5):284–8. Epub 2014/06/28. pmid:24971584.
- 11. Ying GS, Maguire MG, Cyert LA, Ciner E, Quinn GE, Kulp MT, et al. Prevalence of vision disorders by racial and ethnic group among children participating in head start. Ophthalmology. 2014;121(3):630–6. Epub 2013/11/05. pmid:24183422.
- 12. Donahue SP, Arnold RW, Ruben JB, Committee AVS. Preschool vision screening: what should we be detecting and how should we report it? Uniform guidelines for reporting results of preschool vision screening studies. J AAPOS. 2003;7(5):314–6. Epub 2003/10/21. pmid:14566312.
- 13. Donahue SP, Nixon CN, Section on Opthamology AAoP, Committee on P, Ambulatory Medicine AAoP, American Academy of O, et al. Visual System Assessment in Infants, Children, and Young Adults by Pediatricians. Pediatrics. 2016;137(1):28–30. Epub 2016/01/01. pmid:29756730.
- 14. Salcido AA, Bradley J, Donahue SP. Predictive value of photoscreening and traditional screening of preschool children. J AAPOS. 2005;9(2):114–20. Epub 2005/04/20. pmid:15838437.
- 15. Kirk VG, Clausen MM, Armitage MD, Arnold RW. Preverbal photoscreening for amblyogenic factors and outcomes in amblyopia treatment: early objective screening and visual acuities. Arch Ophthalmol. 2008;126(4):489–92. Epub 2008/04/17. pmid:18413517.
- 16. Webber AL, Wood J. Amblyopia: prevalence, natural history, functional effects and treatment. Clin Exp Optom. 2005;88(6):365–75. Epub 2005/12/07. pmid:16329744.
- 17. Huang D, Chen X, Zhang X, Wang Y, Zhu H, Ding H, et al. Pediatric vision screening using the plusoptiX A12C photoscreener in Chinese preschool children aged 3 to 4 years. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):2041. Epub 2017/05/19. pmid:28515427.
- 18. Arnold RW, Arnold AW, Armitage MD, Shen JM, Hepler TE, Woodard TL. Pediatric photoscreeners in high risk patients 2012: a comparison study of Plusoptix, Iscreen and SPOT. Binocul Vis Strabolog Q Simms Romano. 2013;28(1):20–8. Epub 2013/03/26. pmid:23521032.
- 19. Chang DA, Ede RC, Chow DC, Souza RD, Gangcuangco LM, Hanks N, et al. Early Childhood Vision Screening in Hawai’i Utilizing a Hand-Held Screener. Hawaii J Med Public Health. 2015;74(9):292–6. Epub 2015/10/16. pmid:26468424.
- 20. Rajavi Z, Sabbaghi H, Baghini AS, Yaseri M, Moein H, Akbarian S, et al. Prevalence of Amblyopia and Refractive Errors Among Primary School Children. J Ophthalmic Vis Res. 2015;10(4):408–16. Epub 2016/04/07. pmid:27051485.
- 21. Galvis V, Tello A, Otero J, Serrano AA, Gómez LM, Castellanos Y. Refractive errors in children and adolescents in Bucaramanga (Colombia). Arquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia. 2017;80(6):359–63. Epub 2017/12/22. pmid:29267570.
- 22. Galvis V, Tello A, Otero J, Serrano AA, Gómez LM, Camacho PA, et al. Prevalence of refractive errors in Colombia: MIOPUR study. The British journal of ophthalmology. 2018;102(10):1320–3. Epub 2018/06/28. pmid:29945895.
- 23. Fan DS, Lam DS, Lam RF, Lau JT, Chong KS, Cheung EY, et al. Prevalence, incidence, and progression of myopia of school children in Hong Kong. Investigative ophthalmology & visual science. 2004;45(4):1071–5. Epub 2004/03/24. pmid:15037570.
- 24. Rim TH, Kim SH, Lim KH, Choi M, Kim HY, Baek SH. Refractive Errors in Koreans: The Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2008–2012. Korean journal of ophthalmology: KJO. 2016;30(3):214–24. Epub 2016/06/02. pmid:27247521.
- 25. Saw SM, Carkeet A, Chia KS, Stone RA, Tan DT. Component dependent risk factors for ocular parameters in Singapore Chinese children. Ophthalmology. 2002;109(11):2065–71. Epub 2002/11/05. pmid:12414416
- 26. Donahue SP, Arthur B, Neely DE, Arnold RW, Silbert D, Ruben JB, et al. Guidelines for automated preschool vision screening: a 10-year, evidence-based update. J AAPOS. 2013;17(1):4–8. Epub 2013/01/31. pmid:23360915.
- 27. Tidbury LP OC A. The use of the plusoptiX photoscreener for vision screening. British and Irish Orthoptic Journal. 2015;10:11:6.
- 28. Dahlmann-Noor AH, Vrotsou K, Kostakis V, Brown J, Heath J, Iron A, et al. Vision screening in children by Plusoptix Vision Screener compared with gold-standard orthoptic assessment. Br J Ophthalmol. 2009;93(3):342–5. Epub 2008/11/21. pmid:19019940.
- 29. M K. Étude exhaustive de la fréquence des troubles visuels chez les enfants âgés de 5 à 18 ans d’un collège libanais. Cahier d’étude et de recherches francophones / Santé 1996;6(5):323–6.
- 30. Azizoglu S, Junghans BM, Barutchu A, Crewther SG. Refractive errors in students from Middle Eastern backgrounds living and undertaking schooling in Australia. Clin Exp Optom. 2011;94(1):67–75. Epub 2011/01/05. pmid:21198836.
- 31. Alrahili NHR, Jadidy ES, Alahmadi BSH, Abdula’al MF, Jadidy AS, Alhusaini AA, et al. Prevalence of uncorrected refractive errors among children aged 3–10 years in western Saudi Arabia. Saudi Med J. 2017;38(8):804–10. Epub 2017/08/02. pmid:28762432.
- 32. Betaineh HA K A. Prevalence of refractive errors among children (12–17 years) of Tafila City. Sudanese Journal of Public Health. 2008;3(8):186–9.
- 33. Schmidt P, Maguire M, Dobson V, Quinn G, Ciner E, Cyert L, et al. Comparison of preschool vision screening tests as administered by licensed eye care professionals in the Vision In Preschoolers Study. Ophthalmology. 2004;111(4):637–50. Epub 2004/03/31. pmid:15051194.
- 34. Steele G, Ireland D, Block S. Cycloplegic autorefraction results in pre-school children using the Nikon Retinomax Plus and the Welch Allyn SureSight. Optometry and vision science: official publication of the American Academy of Optometry. 2003;80(8):573–7. Epub 2003/08/15. pmid:12917576.
- 35. Giordano L, Friedman DS, Repka MX, Katz J, Ibironke J, Hawes P, et al. Prevalence of refractive error among preschool children in an urban population: the Baltimore Pediatric Eye Disease Study. Ophthalmology. 2009;116(4):739–46, 46 e1–4. Epub 2009/02/27. pmid:19243832.
- 36. O’Donoghue L S K, McClelland JF, Logan NS, Rudnicka AR, Owen CG. Prevalence of Childhood Refractive Error in the United Kingdom. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science 2009;50(13):2562.
- 37. Polling JR, Loudon SE, Klaver CC. Prevalence of amblyopia and refractive errors in an unscreened population of children. Optom Vis Sci. 2012;89(11):e44–9. Epub 2012/10/17. pmid:23069721.
- 38. Gronlund MA, Andersson S, Aring E, Hard AL, Hellstrom A. Ophthalmological findings in a sample of Swedish children aged 4–15 years. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2006;84(2):169–76. Epub 2006/04/28. pmid:16637831.
- 39. Dirani M, Chan YH, Gazzard G, Hornbeak DM, Leo SW, Selvaraj P, et al. Prevalence of refractive error in Singaporean Chinese children: the strabismus, amblyopia, and refractive error in young Singaporean Children (STARS) study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2010;51(3):1348–55. Epub 2009/11/26. pmid:19933197.
- 40. Sharma IP, Lepcha NT, Lhamo T, Ellwein LB, Pokharel GP, Das T, et al. Visual impairment and refractive error in school children in Bhutan: The findings from the Bhutan School Sight Survey (BSSS 2019). PLoS One. 2020;15(9):e0239117. Epub 2020/09/15. pmid:32925975.
- 41. Sheeladevi S, Seelam B, Nukella PB, Modi A, Ali R, Keay L. Prevalence of refractive errors in children in India: a systematic review. Clin Exp Optom. 2018;101(4):495–503. Epub 2018/04/24. pmid:29682791.
- 42. Lan W, Zhao F, Lin L, Li Z, Zeng J, Yang Z, et al. Refractive errors in 3–6 year-old Chinese children: a very low prevalence of myopia? PLoS One. 2013;8(10):e78003. Epub 2013/11/10. pmid:24205064.