Evidencia científica y recomendaciones sobre cribado de agudeza visual: revisión bibliográfica

Fundamentos: En los ámbitos científico e institucional existe controversia sobre cuándo recomendar la práctica del cribado visual en la población. El objetivo de este trabajo es valorar el nivel de evidencia científica que existe sobre el cribado visual para determinar si las recomendaciones existentes son o no adecuadas. Métodos: Revisión sistemática de artículos científicos consultando las bases de datos MedLine y The Cochranre Library Plus, sin restricción de fecha, en los idiomas español e inglés. Se incluyó literatura gris mediante búsqueda manual. No se hicieron restricciones respecto al tipo de estudio. Se revisaron los abstracts y en los casos necesarios los artículos completos, teniéndose en cuenta finalmente todos los artículos que incluían recomendaciones sobre cribado de agudeza visual y eliminando el resto. Resultados: Se seleccionaron 6 artículos. La mayoría de las recomendaciones realizadas por las sociedades fueron a través de guías de práctica clínica o artículos de opinión. Respecto a los diseños de los artículos científicos localizados hubo 2 ensayos aleatorios controlados, 3 ensayos no controlados y 1 estudio transversal. Conclusiones: Los estudios sobre adultos no permiten determinar que las recomendaciones realizadas por las sociedades científicas tengan una base científica sólida. En el caso de los niños, los estudios y las sociedades científicas no aclaran cuál es la edad más idónea para realizar cribado visual.

Reducing visual deficits caused by refractive errors in school and preschool children: results of a pilot school program in the Andean region of Apurimac, Peru

Background: Refractive error is defined as the inability of the eye to bring parallel rays of light into focus on the retina, resulting in nearsightedness (myopia), farsightedness (Hyperopia) or astigmatism. Uncorrected refractive error in children is associated with increased morbidity and reduced educational opportunities. Vision screening (VS) is a method for identifying children with visual impairment or eye conditions likely to lead to visual impairment. Objective: To analyze the utility of vision screening conducted by teachers and to contribute to a better estimation of the prevalence of childhood refractive errors in Apurimac, Peru. Design: A pilot vision screening program in preschool (Group I) and elementary school children (Group II) was conducted with the participation of 26 trained teachers. Children whose visual acuity was<6/9 [20/30] (Group I) and≤6/9 (Group II) in one or both eyes, measured with the Snellen Tumbling E chart at 6 m, were referred for a comprehensive eye exam. Specificity and positive predictive value to detect refractive error were calculated against clinical examination. Program assessment with participants was conducted to evaluate outcomes and procedures. Results: A total sample of 364 children aged 3–11 were screened; 45 children were examined at Centro Oftalmológico Monseñor Enrique Pelach (COMEP) Eye Hospital. Prevalence of refractive error was 6.2% (Group I) and 6.9% (Group II); specificity of teacher vision screening was 95.8% and 93.0%, while positive predictive value was 59.1% and 47.8% for each group, respectively. Aspects highlighted to improve the program included extending training, increasing parental involvement, and helping referred children to attend the hospital. Conclusion: Prevalence of refractive error in children is significant in the region. Vision screening performed by trained teachers is a valid intervention for early detection of refractive error, including screening of preschool children. Program sustainability and improvements in education and quality of life resulting from childhood vision screening require further research.

Comparative analysis of the visual performance and aberrometric outcomes with a new hybrid and two silicone hydrogel multifocal contact lenses: a pilot study

Background: The aim was to evaluate the visual performance achieved with a new multifocal hybrid contact lens and to compare it with that obtained with two other currently available multifocal soft contact lenses. Methods: This pilot prospective comparative study comprised a total of 16 presbyopic eyes of eight patients ranging in age from 43 to 58 years. All patients were fitted with three different models of multifocal contact lens: Duette multifocal (SynergEyes), Air Optix AQUA multifocal (Alcon) and Biofinity multifocal (CooperVision). Fittings were performed randomly in each patient according to a random number sequence, with a wash-out period between fittings of seven days. At two weeks post-fitting, visual, photopic contrast sensitivity and ocular aberrometry were evaluated. Results: No statistically significant differences were found in distance and near visual acuity achieved with the three different types of multifocal contact lens (p ≥ 0.05). Likewise, no significant differences between lenses were found in the monocular and binocular defocus curve (p ≥ 0.10). Concerning contrast sensitivity, better monocular contrast sensitivities for 6, 12 and 18 cycles per degree were found with the Duette and Air Optix multifocal compared to Biofinity (p = 0.02). Binocularly, differences between lenses were not significant (p ≥ 0.27). Furthermore, trefoil aberration was significantly higher with Biofinity multifocal (p < 0.01) and Air Optix (p = 0.01) multifocal compared to Duette. Conclusions: The Duette multifocal hybrid contact lens seems to provide similar visual quality outcomes in presbyopic patients with low corneal astigmatism, when compared with other soft multifocal contact lenses. This preliminary result should be confirmed in studies with larger samples.