Want to take quizzes and track your credits?
What is the association of visual acuity improvement and uncorrected refractive error in patients with ocular disease who are new to low vision clinics?
In this cases series, 27.8% of patients with mean visual acuity of 20/100 had at least 2-line acuity improvement; this finding was more likely seen in working-age adults aged 40 to <65 years, African American patients, or those with moderate vision impairment.
The findings suggest that refractive evaluation should be emphasized in patients under care for ocular disease.
There is substantial socioeconomic and individual burden from uncorrected refractive error (URE) and chronic ocular disease. Understanding the association of visual acuity (VA) reduction with URE and the adults most likely to benefit from refraction may help support clinical decision-making in ophthalmologic care and maximize patient outcomes.
To assess the magnitude of VA improvement associated with URE among adults under ophthalmic care who obtain low vision rehabilitation (LVR) services and identify the characteristics of the patients who are most likely to experience improvement.
Design, Setting, and Participants
This retrospective case series assessed patients 20 years or older who were new to the LVR clinics from August 1, 2013, to December 31, 2015, and who had habitual VA between 20/40 and counting fingers (not including) and underwent refraction. Data analysis was performed from April 4, 2018, to December 20, 2019.
Patient demographics and clinical data, including habitual and refraction VA, refraction, and disease diagnosis. Habitual VA was categorized as mild (VA worse than 20/40 and at least 20/60), moderate (VA worse than 20/60 and better than 20/200), severe (VA 20/200 or worse and better than 20/500), and profound (VA 20/500 or worse) vision impairment (VI).
Main Outcomes and Measures
At least 2-line VA improvement and any VA improvement (≥1-line) by refraction.
Among the 2923 patients new to LVR clinics, 1773 (mean [SD] age, 70 [18.2] years; 1069 [60.3%] female) were included in these analyses. The mean habitual VA was 20/100 (mean [SD], 0.67 [0.36] logMAR). At least 2-line improvement was observed in 493 patients (27.8%), and any VA improvement was seen in 1023 patients (57.7%). At least 2-line improvement was observed in 54 patients (34.8%) with corneal disorders and was more likely seen among patients aged 40 to <65 years compared with those aged 20 to <40 years (odds ratio [OR], 1.57; 95% CI, 1.02–2.41), African American patients compared with white patients (OR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.08-1.85), or patients with moderate VI compared with mild VI (OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.07-1.72).
Conclusions and Relevance
The findings suggest that URE is prevalent among patients with ocular disease and accessing LVR and that refractive evaluation should be considered for patients with ocular disease and reduced VA, especially working-age adults aged 40 to <65 years, African American patients, and those with moderate VI.
Sign in to take quiz and track your certificates
JN Learning™ is the home for CME and MOC from the JAMA Network. Search by specialty or US state and earn AMA PRA Category 1 CME Credit™ from articles, audio, Clinical Challenges and more. Learn more about CME/MOC
Accepted for Publication: April 5, 2020.
Corresponding Author: Judith E. Goldstein, OD, Vision Rehabilitation Services, Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University, 600 N Wolfe St, Baltimore, MD 21287 (firstname.lastname@example.org).
Published Online: May 21, 2020. doi:10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2020.1677
Author Contributions: Drs Guo and Goldstein had full access to all the data and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
Concept and design: All authors.
Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Guo, Goldstein.
Drafting of the manuscript: All authors.
Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.
Statistical analysis: All authors.
Obtained funding: Goldstein.
Administrative, technical, or material support: Goldstein.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.
Funding/Support: This study was funded by the Reader’s Digest Partners for Sight Foundation (Dr Goldstein).
Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funding source had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
You currently have no searches saved.