View details for DOI 10.1016/j.bspc.2023.105549

View details for Web of Science ID 001092748300001

Abstract

Ocular motor function is susceptible to neurological injury because it requires a large portion of brain circuitry including every lobe of the brain, brainstem, thalamus, basal ganglia, cerebellum, cranial nerves and visual tracts. While reports of a high frequency of ocular motor dysfunctions after mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) span multidisciplinary journals, there is no scoping review of the signs, diagnostic assessments and criteria, and appropriate management of ocular motor disorders post-mTBI. Post-mTBI ocular motor dysfunction has been reported to respond to active treatment. The objective of this scoping review is to map the available evidence on the diagnostic assessment and treatment modalities currently used in the management of mTBI-related ocular motor disorders in children and adults. This scoping review also aims to identify gaps in the current literature and provide suggestions for future research.This review will include populations with reported concussion and/or mTBI without restrictions on age, race, sex or time since injury. The review will evaluate the reported symptoms related to ocular motor dysfunction, types of assessments and diagnostic criteria used, reported treatments, and the level of evidence supporting the reported treatments. This review will exclude literature on brain injury of non-traumatic aetiology and moderate/severe traumatic brain injury. Ocular motor dysfunction after mTBI appears in journals across multiple disciplines. Thus, multiple databases will be evaluated including Pubmed, Embase, PEDro, OVID, Clinical Key, Google Scholar and REHABDATA. Literature will be searched from inception to present day. Evidence sources will include experimental study designs including randomised controlled trials, non-randomised controlled trials and interrupted time-series. Additionally, analytical observational studies including prospective and retrospective cohort studies, case series, cross-sectional studies and clinical practice guidelines will be considered for inclusion. Data will be extracted on clinical presentation, frequency, assessment, diagnostic criteria management strategies and outcomes of concussion and mTBI-related ocular motor disorders.This scoping review will use data from existing publications and does not require ethical approval by an institutional review board. Results will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal and presented at relevant conferences and as part of future workshops with professionals involved with diagnosis and management of patients with mTBI.

View details for DOI 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-073656

View details for PubMedID 37857540

Abstract

Importance: Controlling myopia progression is of interest worldwide. Low-dose atropine eye drops have slowed progression in children in East Asia.Objective: To compare atropine, 0.01%, eye drops with placebo for slowing myopia progression in US children.Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a randomized placebo-controlled, double-masked, clinical trial conducted from June 2018 to September 2022. Children aged 5 to 12 years were recruited from 12 community- and institution-based practices in the US. Participating children had low to moderate bilateral myopia (-1.00 diopters [D] to -6.00 D spherical equivalent refractive error [SER]).Intervention: Eligible children were randomly assigned 2:1 to 1 eye drop of atropine, 0.01%, nightly or 1 drop of placebo. Treatment was for 24 months followed by 6 months of observation.Main Outcome Measures: Automated cycloplegic refraction was performed by masked examiners. The primary outcome was change in SER (mean of both eyes) from baseline to 24 months (receiving treatment); other outcomes included change in SER from baseline to 30 months (not receiving treatment) and change in axial length at both time points. Differences were calculated as atropine minus placebo.Results: A total of 187 children (mean [SD] age, 10.1 [1.8] years; age range, 5.1-12.9 years; 101 female [54%]; 34 Black [18%], 20 East Asian [11%], 30 Hispanic or Latino [16%], 11 multiracial [6%], 6 West/South Asian [3%], 86 White [46%]) were included in the study. A total of 125 children (67%) received atropine, 0.01%, and 62 children (33%) received placebo. Follow-up was completed at 24 months by 119 of 125 children (95%) in the atropine group and 58 of 62 children (94%) in the placebo group. At 30 months, follow-up was completed by 118 of 125 children (94%) in the atropine group and 57 of 62 children (92%) in the placebo group. At the 24-month primary outcome visit, the adjusted mean (95% CI) change in SER from baseline was -0.82 (-0.96 to -0.68) D and -0.80 (-0.98 to -0.62) D in the atropine and placebo groups, respectively (adjusted difference=-0.02 D; 95% CI, -0.19 to +0.15 D; P=.83). At 30 months (6 months not receiving treatment), the adjusted difference in mean SER change from baseline was -0.04 D (95% CI, -0.25 to +0.17 D). Adjusted mean (95% CI) changes in axial length from baseline to 24 months were 0.44 (0.39-0.50) mm and 0.45 (0.37-0.52) mm in the atropine and placebo groups, respectively (adjusted difference = -0.002 mm; 95% CI, -0.106 to 0.102 mm). Adjusted difference in mean axial elongation from baseline to 30 months was +0.009 mm (95% CI, -0.115 to 0.134 mm).Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial of school-aged children in the US with low to moderate myopia, atropine, 0.01%, eye drops administered nightly when compared with placebo did not slow myopia progression or axial elongation. These results do not support use of atropine, 0.01%, eye drops to slow myopia progression or axial elongation in US children.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03334253.

View details for DOI 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2023.2855

View details for PubMedID 37440213

Abstract

To survey paediatric eye care providers to identify current patterns of prescribing for hyperopia.Paediatric eye care providers were invited, via email, to participate in a survey to evaluate current age-based refractive error prescribing practices. Questions were designed to determine which factors may influence the survey participant's prescribing pattern (e.g., patient's age, magnitude of hyperopia, patient's symptoms, heterophoria and stereopsis) and if the providers were to prescribe, how much hyperopic correction would they prescribe (e.g., full or partial prescription). The response distributions by profession (optometry and ophthalmology) were compared using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov cumulative distribution function test.Responses were submitted by 738 participants regarding how they prescribe for their hyperopic patients. Most providers within each profession considered similar clinical factors when prescribing. The percentages of optometrists and ophthalmologists who reported considering the factor often differed significantly. Factors considered similarly by both optometrists and ophthalmologists were the presence of symptoms (98.0%, p = 0.14), presence of astigmatism and/or anisometropia (97.5%, p = 0.06) and the possibility of teasing (8.3%, p = 0.49). A wide range of prescribing was observed within each profession, with some providers reporting that they would prescribe for low levels of hyperopia while others reported that they would never prescribe. When prescribing for bilateral hyperopia in children with age-normal visual acuity and no manifest deviation or symptoms, the threshold for prescribing decreased with age for both professions, with ophthalmologists typically prescribing 1.5-2 D less than optometrists. The threshold for prescribing also decreased for both optometrists and ophthalmologists when children had associated clinical factors (e.g., esophoria or reduced near visual function). Optometrists and ophthalmologists most commonly prescribed based on cycloplegic refraction, although optometrists most commonly prescribed based on both the manifest and cycloplegic refraction for children ≥7 years.Prescribing patterns for paediatric hyperopia vary significantly among eye care providers.

View details for DOI 10.1111/opo.13184

View details for PubMedID 37334937

View details for Web of Science ID 001053795604302