4.6 Article

Prevalence and associations of anisometropia and anisoastigmatism in a population based sample of 6 year old children

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
Volume 90, Issue 5, Pages 597-601

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bjo.2005.083154

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aim: To study the distribution of anisometropia and aniso-astigmatism in young Australian children, together with clinical and ocular biometry relations. Method: The Sydney Myopia Study examined 1765 predominantly 6 year old children from 34 randomly selected Sydney schools during 2003-4. Keratometry, cycloplegic autorefraction, and questionnaire data were collected. Results: Spherical equivalent (SE) anisometropia (>= 1 dioptre) prevalence was 1.6% (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.1% to 2.4%). Aniso-astigmatism (>= 1D) prevalence was 1.0% (CI: 0.6% to 1.6%). Both conditions were significantly more prevalent among moderately hyperopic (SE >= 2.0D) than mildly hyperopic (SE 0.5-1.9D) children. Myopic children (SE <=-0.5D) had higher anisometropia prevalence. Neither condition varied by age, sex, or ethnicity. In multivariate analyses, anisometropia was significantly associated with amblyopia, odds ratio (OR) 29, (CI: 8.7 to 99), exotropia (OR 7.7, CI: 1.2 to 50), and neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission (OR 3.6, CI: 1.1 to 12.6). Aniso-astigmatism was significantly associated with amblyopia (OR 8.2, CI: 1.4 to 47), maternal age >35 years (OR 4.0, CI: 1.3 to 11.9), and NICU admission (OR 4.6, CI: 1.2 to 17.2). Anisometropia resulted from relatively large interocular differences in axial length (p < 0.0001) and anterior chamber depth (p = 0.0009). Aniso-astigmatism resulted from differences in corneal astigmatism (p, 0.0001). Conclusion: In this predominantly 6 year old population, anisometropia and aniso-astigmatism were uncommon, had important birth and biometry associations, and were strongly related to amblyopia and strabismus.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available