-
European Journal of Pediatrics May 2024The study aimed to systematically review available literature regarding the safety of virtual reality (VR) use via head-mounted display in children under 14 years of... (Review)
Review
The study aimed to systematically review available literature regarding the safety of virtual reality (VR) use via head-mounted display in children under 14 years of age. The study was a systematic review including all study designs. A search was conducted in January 2023 in PubMed and EMBASE using key terms referring to 'virtual reality', 'paediatrics' and 'safety'. Following title and abstract and full-text screening, data were extracted and a narrative synthesis undertaken. Twenty-six studies met criteria for inclusion in the final review. Limited data suggest that VR may cause mild cybersickness symptoms (not severe enough to cause participants to discontinue use of VR) and that for children with existing amblyopia using VR may result in double vision, which resolves on cessation of VR exposure. Two randomised control trials did not report differences in adverse events between the intervention (VR use) and control groups. Reporting of safety data was poor; only two studies used a validated measure, and in the remaining studies, it was often unclear how adverse events were defined (if at all), how they were categorised in terms of severity and how they were recorded. Conclusion: There is limited evidence regarding any potential harms from short exposure to VR in children under 14 years under supervision. Additional research is required to understand increases in cybersickness during and after VR exposure, and the impact of repeated exposure. Adverse events need to be accurately and routinely recorded to determine any hitherto unknown safety concerns for children < 14 years using VR. What is Known: • Virtual reality (VR) is increasingly being applied in paediatrics, with benefits in terms of anxiety reduction, improved pain management associated with procedures, as an adjunct to physiotherapy and supporting treatments in autistic spectrum disorder.. • Safety guidance in relation to VR use, particularly in younger children, is limited. What is New: • A systematic review of available literature regarding the safety of VR use via head-mounted display in children under 14 years of age demonstrated limited evidence regarding any potential harms from short exposure to VR.. • Studies rarely report safety data and adverse side effects are poorly defined, measured and/or reported. • The lack of a validated measure for evaluating VR-associated symptoms in children compounds the challenging ethical issues of undertaking research into the effects of VR on younger children.
Topics: Humans; Child; Virtual Reality; Adolescent; Child, Preschool; Patient Safety; Infant
PubMed: 38466416
DOI: 10.1007/s00431-024-05488-5 -
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 -
Ophthalmology Science 2024Numerous smartphone applications have been devised for diagnosis, treatment, and symptom management in ophthalmology. Despite the importance of systematic evaluation of... (Review)
Review
TOPIC
Numerous smartphone applications have been devised for diagnosis, treatment, and symptom management in ophthalmology. Despite the importance of systematic evaluation of the purpose, target disease, effectiveness, and utility of smartphone applications to their effective utilization, few studies have formally evaluated their validity, reliability, and clinical utility.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
This report identifies smartphone applications with potential for clinical implementation in ophthalmology and summarizes the evidence on their practical utility.
METHODS
We searched PubMed and EMBASE on July 28, 2022, for articles reporting original data on the effectiveness of treatment, disease detection, diagnostic accuracy, disease monitoring, and usability of smartphone applications in ophthalmology published between January 1, 1987, and July 25, 2022. Their quality was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist.
RESULTS
The initial search yielded 510 articles. After removing 115 duplicates and 285 articles based on inclusion and exclusion criteria, the full texts of the remaining 110 articles were reviewed. Furthermore, 71 articles were included in the final qualitative synthesis. All studies were determined to be of high (87.3%) or moderate (12.7%) quality. In terms of respective application of interest, 24 (33.8%) studies assessed diagnostic accuracy, 17 (23.9%) assessed disease detection, and 3 (4.2%) assessed intervention efficacy. A total of 48 smartphone applications were identified, of which 27 (56.3%) were publicly available. Seventeen (35.4%) applications included functions for ophthalmic examinations, 13 (27.1%) included functions aimed at disease detection, 10 (20.8%) included functions to support medical personnel, five (10.4%) included functions related to disease education, and three (6.3%) included functions to promote treatment adherence for patients. The largest number of applications targeted amblyopia (18.8%), followed by retinal disease (10.4%). Two (4.2%) smartphone applications reported significant efficacy in treating diseases.
CONCLUSION
In this systematic review, a comprehensive appraisal is presented on studies related to diagnostic accuracy, disease detectability, and efficacy of smartphone applications in ophthalmology. Forty-eight applications with potential clinical utility are identified. Appropriate smartphone applications are expected to enable early detection of undiagnosed diseases via telemedicine and prevent visual dysfunction via remote monitoring of chronic diseases.
FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES
Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references.
PubMed: 37869018
DOI: 10.1016/j.xops.2023.100342 -
European Journal of Ophthalmology Jan 2023Amblyopia is a leading cause of preventable and treatable vision loss in the pediatric population. Instrument-based screening of amblyopia-risk factors is being widely... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
Amblyopia is a leading cause of preventable and treatable vision loss in the pediatric population. Instrument-based screening of amblyopia-risk factors is being widely adopted but the audit of its results is still lacking. We sought to review the existing evidence regarding the outcomes of photoscreening applied to children under the age of three years.
METHODS
A three-database search (Pubmed, ISI Web of Science, and Scopus) was performed from inception to March 2021. A meta-analysis of proportions was conducted to summarize the referral rate, untestable rate and positive predictive value (PPV).
RESULTS
Thirteen studies were selected among 705 original abstracts. The quantitative analysis included twelve studies enrolling 64,041 children. Of these, 13% (95%CI: 7-19%) were referred for further confirmation of the screening result. Astigmatism was the most common diagnosis both after screening and after ophthalmologic assessment of referred children. The pooled untestable rate and PPV were 8% (95%CI: 3-15%) and 56% (95%CI: 40-71%), respectively.
CONCLUSION
There is no global consensus on the optimal age, frequency or what magnitude of refractive error must be considered an amblyopia-risk factor. Optimization of referral criteria is therefore warranted.
Topics: Child; Humans; Child, Preschool; Amblyopia; Vision Screening; Refractive Errors; Vision Disorders; Risk Factors; Sensitivity and Specificity; Reproducibility of Results
PubMed: 35522228
DOI: 10.1177/11206721221099777 -
BMJ Open Ophthalmology 2021To identify differences in efficacy between vision-based treatments for improving visual acuity (VA) of the amblyopic eye in persons aged 4-17 years old.
OBJECTIVE
To identify differences in efficacy between vision-based treatments for improving visual acuity (VA) of the amblyopic eye in persons aged 4-17 years old.
DATA SOURCES
Ovid Embase, PubMed (Medline), the Cochrane Library, Vision Cite and Scopus were systematically searched from 1975 to 17 June 2020.
METHODS
Two independent reviewers screened search results for randomised controlled trials of vision-based amblyopia treatments that specified change in amblyopic eye VA (logMAR) as the primary outcome measure. Quality was assessed via risk of bias and GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations).
RESULTS
Of the 3346 studies identified, 36 were included in a narrative synthesis. A random effects meta-analysis (five studies) compared the efficacy of binocular treatments versus patching: mean difference -0.03 logMAR; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.04 (p<0.001), favouring patching. An exploratory study-level regression (18 studies) showed no statistically significant differences between vision-based treatments and a reference group of 2-5 hours of patching. Age, sample size and pre-randomisation optical treatment were not statistically significantly associated with changes in amblyopic eye acuity. A network meta-analysis (26 studies) comparing vision-based treatments to patching 2-5 hours found one statistically significant comparison, namely, the favouring of a combination of two treatment arms comparing combination and binocular treatments, against patching 2-5 hours: standard mean difference: 2.63; 95% CI 1.18 to 4.09. However, this result was an indirect comparison calculated from a single study. A linear regression analysis (17 studies) found a significant relationship between adherence and effect size, but the model did not completely fit the data: regression coefficient 0.022; 95% CI 0.004 to 0.040 (p=0.02).
CONCLUSION
We found no clinically relevant differences in treatment efficacy between the treatments included in this review. Adherence to the prescribed hours of treatment varied considerably and may have had an effect on treatment success.
PubMed: 33912684
DOI: 10.1136/bmjophth-2020-000657 -
Frontiers in Psychology 2022If an individual has been blind since birth due to a treatable eye condition, ocular treatment is urgent. Even a brief period of visual deprivation can alter the...
PURPOSE
If an individual has been blind since birth due to a treatable eye condition, ocular treatment is urgent. Even a brief period of visual deprivation can alter the development of the visual system. The goal of our structured scoping review was to understand how we might better support children with delayed access to ocular treatment for blinding conditions.
METHOD
We searched MEDLINE, Embase and Global Health for peer-reviewed publications that described the impact of early (within the first year) and extended (lasting at least 2 years) bilateral visual deprivation.
RESULTS
Of 551 reports independently screened by two authors, 42 studies met our inclusion criteria. Synthesizing extracted data revealed several trends. The data suggests persistent deficits in visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, global motion, and visual-motor integration, and suspected concerns for understanding complex objects and faces. There is evidence for resilience in color perception, understanding of simple shapes, discriminating between a face and non-face, and the perception of biological motion. There is currently insufficient data about specific (re)habilitation strategies to update low vision services, but there are several insights to guide future research in this domain.
CONCLUSION
This summary will help guide the research and services provision to help children learn to see after early and extended blindness.
PubMed: 36389599
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.954328 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2022Current treatments for amblyopia, typically patching or pharmacological blurring, have limited success. Less than two-thirds of children achieve good acuity of 0.20... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Current treatments for amblyopia, typically patching or pharmacological blurring, have limited success. Less than two-thirds of children achieve good acuity of 0.20 logMAR in the amblyopic eye, with limited improvement of stereopsis, and poor adherence to treatment. A new approach, based on presentation of movies or computer games separately to each eye, may yield better results and improve adherence. These treatments aim to balance the input of visual information from each eye to the brain. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether binocular treatments in children, aged three to eight years, with unilateral amblyopia result in better visual outcomes than conventional patching or pharmacological blurring treatment.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register), MEDLINE, Embase, ISRCTN, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO ICTRP to 19 November 2020, with no language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Two review authors independently screened the results of the search for relevant studies. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that enrolled children between the ages of three and eight years old with unilateral amblyopia. Amblyopia was classed as present when the best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was worse than 0.200 logMAR in the amblyopic eye, with BCVA 0.200 logMAR or better in the fellow eye, in the presence of an amblyogenic risk factor, such as anisometropia, strabismus, or both. To be eligible, children needed to have undergone cycloplegic refraction and ophthalmic examination, including fundal examination and optical treatment, if indicated, with stable BCVA in the amblyopic eye despite good adherence with wearing glasses. We included any type of binocular viewing intervention, on any device (e.g. computer monitors viewed with liquid-crystal display shutter glasses; hand-held screens, including mobile phones with lenticular prism overlay; or virtual reality displays). Control groups received standard amblyopia treatment, which could include patching or pharmacological blurring of the better-seeing eye. We included full-time (all waking hours) and part-time (between 1 and 12 hours a day) patching regimens. We excluded children who had received any treatment other than optical treatment; and studies with less than 8-week follow-up.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary outcome of the review was the change from baseline of distance BCVA in the amblyopic eye after 16 (± 2) weeks of treatment, measured in logMAR units on an age-appropriate acuity test.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified one eligible RCT of conventional patching treatment versus novel binocular treatment, and analysed a subset of 68 children who fulfilled the age criterion of this review. We obtained data for the mean change in amblyopic eye visual acuity, adverse events (diplopia), and adherence to prescribed treatment at 8- and 16-week follow-up intervals, though no data were available for change in BCVA after 52 weeks. Risk of bias for the included study was considered to be low. The certainty of evidence for the visual acuity outcomes at 8 and 16 weeks of treatment and adherence to the study intervention was rated moderate using the GRADE criteria, downgrading by one level due to imprecision. The certainty of evidence was downgraded by two levels and rated low for the proportion of participants reporting adverse events due to the sample size. Acuity improved in the amblyopic eye in both the binocular and patching groups following 16 weeks of treatment (improvement of -0.21 logMAR in the binocular group and -0.24 logMAR in the patching group, mean difference (MD) 0.03 logMAR (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.10 to 0.04; 63 children). This difference was non-significant and the improvements in both the binocular and patching groups are also considered clinically similar. Following 8 weeks of treatment, acuity improved in both the binocular and patching groups (improvement of -0.18 logMAR in the patching group compared to -0.16 logMAR improvement in the binocular-treatment group) (MD 0.02, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.08). Again this difference was statistically non-significant, and the differences observed between the patching and binocular groups are also clinically non-significant. No adverse event of permanent diplopia was reported. Adherence was higher in the patching group (47% of participants in the iPad group achieved over 75% compliance compared with 90% of the patching group). Data were not available for changes in stereopsis nor for contrast sensitivity following treatment.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Currently, there is only one RCT that offers evidence of the safety and effectiveness of binocular treatment. The authors are moderately confident that after 16 weeks of treatment, the gain in amblyopic eye acuity with binocular treatment is likely comparable to that of conventional patching treatment. However, due to the limited sample size and lack of long term (52 week) follow-up data, it is not yet possible to draw robust conclusions regarding the overall safety and sustained effectiveness of binocular treatment. Further research, using acknowledged methods of visual acuity and stereoacuity assessment with known reproducibility, is required to inform decisions about the implementation of binocular treatments for amblyopia in clinical practice, and should incorporate longer term follow-up to establish the effectiveness of binocular treatment. Randomised controlled trials should also include outcomes reported by users, adherence to prescribed treatment, and recurrence of amblyopia after cessation of treatment.
Topics: Amblyopia; Child; Child, Preschool; Eyeglasses; Humans; Strabismus; Video Games; Visual Acuity
PubMed: 35129211
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011347.pub3 -
BMC Ophthalmology Dec 2023Sutureless scleral fixed intraocular lens implantation (SF-IOL) has become one of the mainstream schemes in clinical treatment of aphakic eyes because of its advantages,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Sutureless scleral fixed intraocular lens implantation (SF-IOL) has become one of the mainstream schemes in clinical treatment of aphakic eyes because of its advantages, such as avoiding dislocation of intraocular lens or subluxation caused by suture degradation or fracture and significant improvement of postoperative visual acuity. However, a consensus on the relative effectiveness and safety of this operation and other methods is still lacking. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of sutureless SF-IOL with other methods. Aphakia means that the lens leaves the normal position and loses its original function, including absence or complete dislocation and subluxation of the lens which could cause anisometropic amblyopia, strabismus, and loss of binocular function in children and adolescents. For adults, the loss of the lens could lead to high hyperopia and affect vision. Above all this disease can seriously affect the quality of life of patients.
METHODS
Literature about sutureless SF-IOL in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, China Technical Journal VIP database, and Wanfang database published from 2000 to 2022 was reviewed. The weighted average difference was calculated by RevMan5.3 software for analysis. Two researchers independently selected the study and used the Cochrane collaboration tool to assess the risk of errors. Cochrane bias risk tool was used to evaluate the quality of evidence. This study is registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022363282).
RESULTS
The postoperative IOL-related astigmatism of sutureless SF-IOL was lower than that of suture SF-IOL, and there was statistical difference when we compared the absolute postoperative spherical equivalent after sutureless SF-IOL and suture SF-IOL. Indicating that the degree of refractive error after sutureless SF-IOL was lower. Meanwhile, the operation time of sutureless SF-IOL was shorter than that of suture SF-IOL. The subgroup analysis showed that the absolute postoperative spherical equivalent and astigmatism values in Yamane technique were lower than those in suture SF-IOL.
CONCLUSION
Sutureless SF-IOL has the advantages of stable refraction, short operation time, and less postoperative complications. However, high-quality literature to compare these technologies is lacking. Some long-term follow-up longitudinal prospective studies are needed to confirm the findings.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Child; Humans; Aphakia; Astigmatism; Lens Implantation, Intraocular; Lenses, Intraocular; Postoperative Complications; Quality of Life; Retrospective Studies; Sclera; Suture Techniques
PubMed: 38053049
DOI: 10.1186/s12886-023-03223-6 -
Pediatric Rheumatology Online Journal Jul 2019Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis associated Uveitis (JIA-U) represents its most frequent extra-articular manifestation and the main cause of childhood uveitis in in...
BACKGROUND
Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis associated Uveitis (JIA-U) represents its most frequent extra-articular manifestation and the main cause of childhood uveitis in in developed countries. The broad variety of outcome measures utilized makes the comparison of the disease course, risk for complications, impairment in visual function, and responses to treatment quite difficult. Our aim was to summarize evidence regarding the current availability of outcome measures in JIA-U.
METHODS
A systematic review between January 2000 and December 2018 was performed to identify studies investigating outcome measures used in JIA-U.
RESULTS
The initial search identified 8254 articles of which 89 were potentially eligible. After the full text revision, a total of 27 studies, including 2 RCTs, were included. Among these studies 12 outcome measures for JIA-U use have been identified (grade of cells in the AC, grade of flare in the AC, VA, amblyopia, structural complications, use and sparing of oral corticosteroids and immunosuppressive drugs, surgery requirement, biomarkers, bilateral disease, JIA persistence, quality of life assessments, uveitis subtype). As regards primary outcome measures, 44% among studies included one or more variables related to disease activity (i.e. grade of flare, grade of cells); 56% included visual function performance (i.e. visual acuity); 68% (17/25) included one or more variables of disease-associated tissue damage or complications (i.e. cataract, amblyopia); 24% included disease features (i.e. bilateral disease; uveitis subtype); 44% included laboratory features (i.e. biomarkers); 8% included JIA features (i.e. persistence of disease); 12% included quality of life (i.e. EYE-Q); 44% included management (i.e. use and sparing of oral corticosteroids and other immunosuppressive drugs; surgery requirement).
CONCLUSIONS
Our systematic review surveys the heterogeneity around outcome measures related to JIA-U in children, even in RCTs. It does not provide the solution to overcome the heterogeneity in uveitis studies, but it does provide an estimate of the scale of the problems and provides data to inform this important debate; highlighting the requirement to obtain a new consensus regarding a common approach to identify suitable and efficient outcome measures in JIA-U.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Amblyopia; Arthritis, Juvenile; Consensus; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Quality of Life; Severity of Illness Index; Uveitis; Visual Acuity
PubMed: 31296236
DOI: 10.1186/s12969-019-0330-9