4.6 Article

IMI - Defining and Classifying Myopia: A Proposed Set of Standards for Clinical and Epidemiologic Studies

期刊

出版社

ASSOC RESEARCH VISION OPHTHALMOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.18-25957

关键词

myopia; myopia classification; myopia definitions; high myopia; myopia thresholds; high myopia; pathologic myopia

资金

  1. International Myopia Institute

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE. We provide a standardized set of terminology, definitions, and thresholds of myopia and its main ocular complications. METHODS. Critical review of current terminology and choice of myopia thresholds was done to ensure that the proposed standards are appropriate for clinical research purposes, relevant to the underlying biology of myopia, acceptable to researchers in the field, and useful for developing health policy. RESULTS. We recommend that the many descriptive terms of myopia be consolidated into the following descriptive categories: myopia, secondary myopia, axial myopia, and refractive myopia. To provide a framework for research into myopia prevention, the condition of premyopia'' is defined. As a quantitative trait, we recommend that myopia be divided into myopia (i.e., all myopia), low myopia, and high myopia. The current consensus threshold value for myopia is a spherical equivalent refractive error <= -0.50 diopters (D), but this carries significant risks of classification bias. The current consensus threshold value for high myopia is a spherical equivalent refractive error <= -6.00 D. Pathologic myopia'' is proposed as the categorical term for the adverse, structural complications of myopia. A clinical classification is proposed to encompass the scope of such structural complications. CONCLUSIONS. Standardized definitions and consistent choice of thresholds are essential elements of evidence-based medicine. It is hoped that these proposals, or derivations from them, will facilitate rigorous, evidence-based approaches to the study and management of myopia.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据