4.6 Article

Is measurement of adult height useful in screening for primary angle closure?

Journal

EYE
Volume 23, Issue 9, Pages 1775-1780

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/eye.2008.375

Keywords

glaucoma; primary angle closure; height; screening

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Adult height is independently related to ocular dimensions and shorter people have shorter globes and shallower anterior chambers. We investigated the relationship between adult height and angle dimensions to explore measuring height as a possible screening test for angle closure. Methods A population-based, cross-sectional survey of adult Chinese living in the Tanjong Pagar district, Singapore was conducted. Anterior chamber depth, gonioscopic angle width and height were assessed using standardized protocols. Results Data were available for 996 persons. Shorter people had shallower anterior chamber depth (2.35 mm for persons < 144 cm vs 2.72 mm for persons > 170 cm, P = 0.008) and smaller gonioscopic angles (22 degrees for < 144 cm vs 30 degrees for > 170 cm, P = 0.079). After controlling for age and gender, adult height was significantly related to anterior chamber depth (P = 0.008) but not significantly related to gonioscopic angle width (P = 0.079). Female sex and age >= 50 years used together correctly identified 45/66 (68.2%) individuals with an occludable angle (sensitivity 68.2%, specificity 61.3%). Fewer people, 41/66 (62.1%), were correctly identified when height < 160 cm was added to female sex and age 50 >= years (sensitivity was 62.1% and specificity was 64.7%). Conclusions Shorter adult height is significantly associated with a shallower anterior chamber depth, but the addition of height contributed little to demographics (age and gender) as the preliminary screening criteria to identify individuals at risk of an occludable angle. Eye (2009) 23, 1775-1780; doi:10.1038/eye.2008.375; published online 9 January 2009

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