-
Journal of Optometry 2016Claims that coloured filters aid reading date back 200 years and remain controversial. Some claims, for example, that more than 10% of the general population and 50% of... (Review)
Review
Claims that coloured filters aid reading date back 200 years and remain controversial. Some claims, for example, that more than 10% of the general population and 50% of people with dyslexia would benefit from coloured filters lack sound evidence and face validity. Publications with such claims typically cite research using methods that have not been described in the scientific literature and lack a sound aetiological framework. Notwithstanding these criticisms, some researchers have used more rigorous selection criteria and methods of prescribing coloured filters that were developed at a UK Medical Research Council unit and which have been fully described in the scientific literature. We review this research and disconfirm many of the more extreme claims surrounding this topic. This literature indicates that a minority subset of dyslexics (circa 20%) may have a condition described as visual stress which most likely results from a hyperexcitability of the visual cortex. Visual stress is characterised by symptoms of visual perceptual distortions, headaches, and eyestrain when viewing repetitive patterns, including lines of text. This review indicates that visual stress is distinct from, although sometimes co-occurs with, dyslexia. Individually prescribed coloured filters have been shown to improve reading performance in people with visual stress, but are unlikely to influence the phonological and memory deficits associated with dyslexia and therefore are not a treatment for dyslexia. This review concludes that larger and rigorous randomised controlled trials of interventions for visual stress are required. Improvements in the diagnosis of the condition are also a priority.
Topics: Asthenopia; Color Perception; Colorimetry; Dyslexia; Filtration; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Reading; Visual Perception
PubMed: 27425262
DOI: 10.1016/j.optom.2016.04.002 -
AJR. American Journal of Roentgenology Apr 2018The purpose of this study was to review current literature regarding radiologist fatigue.
OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this study was to review current literature regarding radiologist fatigue.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A literature search was performed using PubMed. Key words and Medical Subject Heading terms were used to generate refined queries with inclusion and exclusion criteria, focusing on fatigue and error. Results were selected according to these criteria: examined radiologist fatigue and radiologic error stemming from fatigue; experimental results measured as accuracy, error, or performance; and peer-reviewed publication. The risk of bias was addressed by including both quantitative and qualitative studies.
RESULTS
Twenty-seven articles were included, mainly primary research articles. Common outcome measures included subjective self-reports and tests to measure eyestrain. Reaction time was also recorded, accounting for variables such as age and experience. One group recommended that guidelines should be implemented regarding number of hours worked. Most recommended ergonomic interventions, proposing the implementation of tools to measure and standardize fatigue and optimize workflow, in conjunction with considering radiologists individually. Education in appropriate viewing habits and breaks were also suggested. Only one study with seven participants recommended that radiologists should sleep well to improve their performance and overall well-being, despite the undeniable evidence that radiologists are fatigued.
CONCLUSION
Fatigue is present in radiology and affects diagnostic accuracy.
Topics: Asthenopia; Clinical Competence; Diagnostic Errors; Ergonomics; Fatigue; Humans; Quality of Life; Radiologists; Sleep; Workload
PubMed: 29446673
DOI: 10.2214/AJR.17.18613 -
BMJ Open Aug 2022Increased exposure to digital devices as part of online classes increases susceptibility to visual impairments, particularly among school students taught using...
OBJECTIVES
Increased exposure to digital devices as part of online classes increases susceptibility to visual impairments, particularly among school students taught using e-learning strategies. This study aimed to identify the impact of remote learning during the COVID-19 lockdown on children's visual health.
DESIGN
Systematic review using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.
DATA SOURCES
Scopus, PubMed and ScienceDirect databases from the year 2020 onwards.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
We included cross-sectional, case-control, cohort studies, case series and case reports, published in English, Spanish or French, that approached the effects of remote learning during the COVID-19 lockdown on visual health in neurotypical children.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
We included a total of 21 articles with previous quality assessments using the Joanna Briggs checklist. Risk of bias assessment was applied using the National Institutes of Health quality assessment tool for before-and-after studies with no control group; the tool developed by Hoy to assess cross-sectional studies; the Murad tool to evaluate the methodological quality of case reports and case series; and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for cohort studies.
RESULTS
All but one study reported a deleterious impact of the COVID-19 lockdown on visual health in children. Overall, the most frequently identified ocular effects were refractive errors, accommodation disturbances and visual symptoms such as dry eye and asthenopia.
CONCLUSIONS
Increased dependence on digital devices for online classes has either induced or exacerbated visual disturbances, such as rapid progression of myopia, dry eye and visual fatigue symptoms, and vergence and accommodation disturbances, in children who engaged in remote learning during the COVID-19 lockdown.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42022307107.
Topics: COVID-19; Child; Communicable Disease Control; Cross-Sectional Studies; Humans; Learning; Schools; United States
PubMed: 35922104
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-062388 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2020Hyperopia in infancy requires accommodative effort to bring images into focus. Prolonged accommodative effort has been associated with an increased risk of strabismus.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Hyperopia in infancy requires accommodative effort to bring images into focus. Prolonged accommodative effort has been associated with an increased risk of strabismus. Strabismus may result in asthenopia and intermittent diplopia, and makes near work tasks difficult to complete. Spectacles to correct hyperopic refractive error is believed to prevent the development of strabismus.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness of prescription spectacles compared with no intervention for the prevention of strabismus in infants and children with hyperopia.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (2018, Issue 12; which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register); Ovid MEDLINE; Embase.com; three other databases; and two trial registries. We used no date or language restrictions in the electronic search for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 4 December 2018.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials and quasi-randomized trials investigating spectacle intervention or no treatment for children with hyperopia. We required hyperopia to be at least greater than +2.00 diopters (D).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. The primary outcome was the proportion of children with manifest strabismus, as defined by study investigators. Other outcomes included the amblyopia, stereoacuity, and the effect of spectacle use of strabismus and visual acuity. We also collected information on change in refractive error as a measurement of the interference of emmetropization.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified four randomized controlled trials (985 children enrolled who were aged six months to less than 36 months) in this review. Three trials were in the UK with follow-up periods ranging from one to 3.5 years and one in the US with three years' follow-up. Investigators reported both incidence and final status regarding strabismus. Evidence of the incidence of strabismus, measured in 804 children over three to four years in four trials was uncertain although suggestive of a benefit with spectacle use (risk ratio (RR) 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41 to 1.02). We have very low confidence in these results due to high risk of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision. When assessed as the proportion of children with strabismus at the end of three years' follow-up, we found a similar level of evidence for an effect of spectacles on strabismus as reported in one study (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.31 to 3.25; 106 children). We have very low confidence in these results because of low sample size and risk of bias. One trial reported on the risk for developing amblyopia and inadequate stereoacuity after three years in 106 children. There was unclear evidence for a decreased risk of developing amblyopia (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.93), and limited evidence for a benefit of spectacles for prevention of inadequate stereoacuity (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.88). We have very low confidence in these findings due to imprecision and risk of bias. The risk of not developing emmetropization is unclear. One trial reported on the proportion of children not achieving emmetropization at three years' follow-up (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.18 to 3.19). One trial suggested spectacles impede emmetropization, and one trial reported no difference. These two trials could not be combined because the methods for assessing emmetropization were different. With the high risk of bias and inconsistency, the certainty of evidence for a risk for impeding or benefiting emmetropization is very low. Based on a meta-analysis of four trials (770 children), the risk of having visual acuity worse than 20/30 measured up to three years of age or at the end of three years of follow-up was uncertain for children with spectacle correction compared with those without correction (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.18; very low confidence due to risk of bias and imprecision).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The effect of spectacle correction for prevention of strabismus is still unclear. In addition, the use of spectacle on the risk of visual acuity worse than 20/30, amblyopia, and inadequate emmetropization is also unclear. There may be a benefit on prevention of inadequate stereoacuity. However, these effects may have been chance findings or due to bias.
Topics: Age Factors; Amblyopia; Bias; Child, Preschool; Emmetropia; Eyeglasses; Humans; Hyperopia; Incidence; Infant; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sample Size; Strabismus; Treatment Outcome; Vision Disorders; Visual Acuity; Watchful Waiting
PubMed: 32240551
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007738.pub3