Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
    Users Online: 167
Home Print this page Email this page Small font size Default font size Increase font size


 
 Table of Contents  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2021  |  Volume : 10  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 43-48

Prevalence of undiagnosed, preventable visual impairment in children with intellectual disability in special needs schools in Western Saudi Arab


1 Department of Ophthalmology, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
2 Department of Ophthalmology, University of Jeddah, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
3 Department of Optometry, Faculty of Medical Science, University of Jeddah, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
4 Faculty of Medicine, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

Date of Submission22-Oct-2020
Date of Decision04-Feb-2021
Date of Acceptance05-Feb-2021
Date of Web Publication02-Apr-2021

Correspondence Address:
Lina Hassan Raffa
Department of Ophthalmology, King Abdulaziz University Hospital, Prince Majid Road, Al Sulaymaniyah, Jeddah 22252
Saudi Arabia
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/sjhs.sjhs_236_20

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 


Background: Visual disorders have been reported to be higher among children with intellectual disability (ID) than among their peers without special needs; however, prevalence data on visual problems in children in Saudi Arabia are scarce. Aims: The aim of this study is to report the prevalence and causes of undiagnosed, correctable visual impairment in children with ID. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional study of students enrolled in special educational needs schools in the western region of Saudi Arabia in April 2018. Teller visual acuity (VA) assessment and refractive errors were noted. Participants with mild to profound ID underwent detailed ophthalmologic examinations, including cycloplegic refraction, full orthoptic workup, biomicroscopy, and funduscopy. Results: A total of 61 students participated in this study. Ocular findings in decreasing prevalence were as follows: Subnormal VA (n = 41, 67.2%), refractive errors (n = 31, 51.7%), fundus anomalies (n = 13, 22%), significant strabismus (n = 9, 14.8%), abnormal head posture (n = 8, 13.3%), nystagmus (n = 3, 4.9%), anterior segment abnormality (n = 3, 4.9%), and extraocular motility abnormality (n = 2, 3.3%). Astigmatism was found in 22 cases (36.7%), followed by hyperopia (n = 13, 21.7%), myopia (n = 10, 16.7%), and anisometropia (n = 5, 8.3%). Students with syndromic ID had significantly more moderate-to-severe subnormal VA (P < 0.001) and myopic shift on cycloplegic refraction (P = 0.014 right eyes and P = 0.004 left eyes) than those with nonsyndromic ID. Conclusions: A considerable proportion of ID children have significant visual disorders. This emphasizes the need for adequate diagnostic and therapeutic national eye care services for children with ID.

Keywords: Intellectual disability, prevalence, refractive errors, Saudi Arabia, special needs, visual impairment


How to cite this article:
Raffa LH, Al-Shamrani AZ, Madani FM, AlQarni AS, Allinjawi KF, Fagih AK, Alhibshi N. Prevalence of undiagnosed, preventable visual impairment in children with intellectual disability in special needs schools in Western Saudi Arab. Saudi J Health Sci 2021;10:43-8

How to cite this URL:
Raffa LH, Al-Shamrani AZ, Madani FM, AlQarni AS, Allinjawi KF, Fagih AK, Alhibshi N. Prevalence of undiagnosed, preventable visual impairment in children with intellectual disability in special needs schools in Western Saudi Arab. Saudi J Health Sci [serial online] 2021 [cited 2021 Jul 23];10:43-8. Available from: https://www.saudijhealthsci.org/text.asp?2021/10/1/43/312902




  Introduction Top


Visual disorders are common worldwide, with about 285 million people estimated to live with a visual disability.[1] Approximately 90% of these people live in developing nations, and children represent 3% of this subpopulation. Problems in visual functioning are frequent in children with intellectual disabilities. An intellectual disability is defined (ID) is a disorder, characterized by an individual's inability to learn at an expected level and function in everyday life.[2] According to other investigators, ID involves neurodevelopmental disorders that start in childhood and are characterized by limitations in intellectual functioning and adaptive behavior.[3]

The prevalence and incidence of visual disorders in persons with ID have been more extensively studied in adults,[4],[5],[6],[7] but recently, more research has focused on the epidemiology of visual impairment in children with ID.[5],[8],[9] In pediatric ophthalmology, with or without ID, refractive errors and strabismus are the most common visual disorders, with amblyopia reported as the main risk factor associated with these disorders.[10],[11],[12] In addition, disorders such as refractive errors, strabismus, nystagmus, cataract, and cortical blindness have been reported to be higher among children with ID than among their peers without special needs.[13] A cross-sectional study investigating the prevalence and etiologies of visual impairment in children with ID reported that the prevalence of visual impairment was 10.5%.[5] In another report, the investigators identified strabismus in 26.8% of the children examined – 14.9% of the children had esotropia and 10.3% had exotropia.[9] Other investigators have even claimed to have evidence that all special needs children require visual assessment.[8] However, these children do not get regular screening tests.[7],[14] Consequently, significant refractive errors may not be detected, and if left uncorrected, they can lead to worsening vision, poorer learning acquisition, and permanent visual impairment.

In Saudi Arabia, where ID has been reported in 8.9 per 1000 children with a moderate or severe disability identified in 70.9% of the cases,[15] it is critical to obtain the data on the etiology and prevalence of visual impairment in this subpopulation of children. However, data on the prevalence of visual disorders in children in Saudi Arabia are scarce.[16] This study aims to determine the prevalence of visual impairment in children with ID in the Western Province of Saudi Arabia. This information could help health care policy-makers implement vision screening services and provide low-vision services to this underprivileged group.


  Material and Methods Top


Study population

This study was performed in accordance with the declaration of Helsinki. Approval was granted by the Institutional Ethics Board, and informed consent was obtained from all participating families. Based on two school's requests to assess the children's vision on-site, 46 children attending the first school and 18 attending the second summer school participated in the study. The inclusion criteria included being younger than 18 years, completion of the vision assessment, and residence in the Western Province (Jeddah = 60, Makkah = 1) of Saudi Arabia. Of the 64 children who participated in the study, three were excluded because they were above 18 years of age.

The full medical records of the children were checked for details regarding health status, including details of childbirth, etiology of intellectual disability, and chronic illnesses. Examinations were undertaken on-site to facilitate the acceptance by the students. This assessment was performed by two ophthalmologists and two optometrists. In addition, the participants' caregivers were asked whether their children wore eyeglasses.

Blood pressure, weight, and height were taken within 2 weeks before the commencement of the study for all students. Body mass index (BMI) was calculated, and all anthropometric measurements were plotted on age- and gender-appropriate World Health Organization (WHO) charts.[17]

Definitions

Syndromic versus Nonsyndromic Intellectual Disability

Syndromic intellectual disability included those children with a defined predisposing cause of intellectual disability, for example, chromosomal disorders, including Down syndrome or gene mutation (achondroplasia or Alazami syndrome). The subsample included nine children. The nonsyndromic group included 52 children with autism, attention-deficit hyperactive disorder, cerebral palsy/perinatal asphyxia, or cerebral malformations.

Vision impairment

Mild

  • Visual acuity (VA) between 0.2 and 0.5 Logarithm of the Minimum Angle of Resolution (LogMAR).


Moderate

  • VA of 0.6–0.9 LogMAR.


Severe

  • VA <0.9 LogMAR.


Refractive errors

Myopia is defined as the spherical equivalent (SE) of at least − 0.75 Diopters (D) or more, hyperopia as the SE of ≥+2.0 D, and astigmatism as the cylinder of ≥1.0 Diopters, and anisometropia as the SE difference of at least 1.0 D between the two eyes of the same child.

Ocular abnormality

Ocular abnormality was defined as the presence of one or more of the following on presentation: Subnormal VA (>20/30 in either eye), amblyopia, refractive errors, strabismus, reduced motility, anterior segment anomalies, and/or optic nerve or retinal vessel anomalies.

Ocular examinations

During the examination, each student was accompanied by a school staff member who knew the students well. The Titmus housefly test was attempted in all children to assess binocular function. Teller acuity cards were successfully used to measure the best-corrected VA monocularly in 41 children. An adhesive patch was used to cover the other eye to avoid peeking. Depending on the child's degree of cooperation, strabismus was measured using either the prism cover test (for distant and near fixation) or the Krimsky corneal reflex test. Abnormal head posture was noted at near and distance while the patient was fixating on a near accommodative target and an iPad at a distance. Eye movements were observed while tracking an object. The examiner sat in front of the child at a 1-m distance and held two toys >10 cm in size to test for saccades. Saccades were observed when the child was presented with the first toy and then the second toy was made to appear.

All children underwent manual cycloplegic refraction 40 min after dilation with cyclopentolate 1% and phenylephrine 2.5%, a slit-lamp biomicroscopy, and a detailed dilated fundus examination, including peripheral retinal examination, if possible.

All the participants were fully inspected for any obvious dysmorphic features, and the measurements and observations were recorded on a dysmorphology checklist.[18] A detailed report was given to all caregivers to improve the visual functioning of these children. Spectacles were prescribed to students with uncorrected refractive errors or those whose current spectacles were unsuitable.

Statistical analysis

This study research was analyzed utilizing IBM SPSS version 23 (IBM Corp., Armonk, N.Y., USA). Basic descriptive statistics were utilized to describe and sort out the study variables. The Chi-squared test was used to compare the categorical variables. While looking at two group means and in excess of two group means, an Independent t-test and one-way analysis of variance, with Least Significant Difference (LSD) as a post hoc test, separately was applied. These tests were finished with the presumption of normal distribution. Otherwise, Welch's t-test for two group means and Games Howell for the multiple groups were used as an alternative for the LSD test. Pearson's coefficient was used as a bivariate test to check the linear correlation of variables. In conclusion, a regular P < 0.05 was the criteria to reject the null hypothesis.


  Results Top


Demographic and clinical data

A total of 61 children were included in our analyses (mean [standard deviation] age, 7.4 [2.8] years; range, 3.0–14.8 years). Boys represented more than half of the sample (n = 41, 67%). Nineteen (31%) of the children were born by cesarean section; 55 (91.7%) were full term at delivery. Approximately 28% of the children had chronic illnesses, including epilepsy, heart diseases, asthma, chronic lung diseases, asthma/hyperactive airway disease, renal problems, and/or iron-deficiency anemia. A summary of the etiology of intellectual disability is presented in [Table 1].
Table 1: Summary of diagnoses in the sample

Click here to view


Characteristics of the children

Fourteen children (23%) had dysmorphic features on examination. Nevertheless, only nine children had been identified with syndromic ID. Median systolic and diastolic blood pressures ranged from 80 to 125 mmHg and 40–90 mmHg, respectively. More than half of the children had normal height and weight according to the WHO growth population chart [Table 2].
Table 2: Summary of anthropometric measurements based on the World Health Organization population charts

Click here to view


Ophthalmological and orthoptic evaluation

Ophthalmologists detected at least one ocular abnormality in 55 of the children. [Table 3] identifies selected ophthalmological variables comparing them between children with syndromic or non syndromic ID. The Welch's t-test showed that 41 children (67.2%) had a subnormal VA and this did not correlate neither with age nor gender. According to the WHO criteria, seventeen patients (27.8%) were suffering from mild visual impairment. Forty-one percent of the children were found to be functioning with vision at a level classifiable as moderate (n = 22) to severe (n = 3) visual impairment. Normal VA was only found in three of the examined patients (4.9%). The presence of dysmorphic features was significantly correlated with having subnormal VA (P < 0.001), significant refractive errors (P < 0.04 both eyes) and astigmatism (P = 0.036). Amblyopia was found in two children; however, 16 children (26.2%) did not cooperate to be visually assessed for amblyopia. Refractive errors were detected in 51.7% of the children and ranged from + 4.75–−14.25 in SE RE to + 5.625–−13.00 SE LE. High myopia (> −6.00 D) was detected in two patients (3.2%) and moderate myopia (−3.00–−6.00) in two cases (3.2%); testing revealed manifest exotropia in one of these patients. Astigmatism was found in 22 of the patients (36.7%), followed by hyperopia in 13 patients (21.7%), myopia in 10 (16.7%), and anisometropia in 5 (8.3%). Only two children were reported to wear glasses at the time of examination as per the caregivers. Eyeglasses were prescribed, and a follow-up was planned for 30 children (50%).
Table 3: Comparison of selected ophthalmological variables in 61 intellectually disabled children divided into syndromic and nonsyndromic

Click here to view


According to Welch's t-test, myopia correlated positively with age (P = 0.013). Both VA (LogMAR) and refraction (SE) correlated with height (WHO chart). Lower VA (P = 0.002 RE and P = 0.004 LE) and myopic shift (P = 0.034 RE and P = 0.021 LE) were noted in shorter status individuals. Refraction was not found to correlate with gender.

The anterior segment anomaly noted in three patients included diffuse, bilateral corneal opacity, shallow anterior chamber, and blue sclera. All twenty children with a clear positive response to the stereo test had no misalignment on examination.


  Discussion Top


Uncorrected refractive errors and cataracts are the principal causes of vision impairment worldwide,[19] with up to 80% of all vision impairment considered avoidable.[20] Refractive errors have been identified as the major cause of vision impairment in the pediatric age group.[10],[13],[21] Previous researches[13],[21],[22] also showed that children with ID have a significantly increased risk of visual impairment and refractive errors. Vora et al.[22] evaluated 70 special needs children and 175 otherwise healthy children and reported that 58.5% of children with ID versus 2.9% of healthy children had refractive errors. In another report, 29% of children with ID had refractive errors.[23] We identified refractive errors in 51.7% of the participants, which falls within the range reported in studies conducted among children with ID.[22],[23]

In our study, 40.9% of the children had moderate-to-severe visual impairment based on the WHO criteria. Half of the children had uncorrected refractive errors. The most common disorders included astigmatism (36.7%), hyperopia (21.7%), myopia (16.7%), and anisometropia (8.3%). However, only two children were wearing corrective eyeglasses at the time of the study. Findings from a study of school children in Al Hassa (n = 2002), Saudi Arabia, showed that refractive errors were detected in 13.7% of the children examined myopia and hypermetropia were diagnosed in 9.0% and 1.4% of the students, respectively.[24] Another study that investigated the prevalence of correctable visual disorders in 5176 primary school children in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia reported that refractive errors were detected in 16.3% of the students.[25] In a study of 3–10 years old children enrolled in schools across western Saudi Arabia, uncorrected refractive errors were reported in 34.9% of the cases.[26] Astigmatism, anisometropia, hypermetropia, and myopia were diagnosed in 25.3%, 7.4%, 1.5%, and 0.7% of the children, respectively. As expected, the frequency of vision impairment in otherwise healthy children in studies conducted in our region is lower than that reported among children with ID in our study. However, the relatively high frequency of refractive errors in those studies may be due to the lack of national implementation of vision screening programs.

Preferential looking techniques, fixation preference tests, or picture charts are used to estimate VA in young children and disabled persons.[27],[28] These tests are reliable when appropriate diagnostic criteria are applied, as most children with amblyopia are identified.[29] They can therefore be used as an alternative or in conjunction with tests of fixation preference during the assessment of children who cannot complete optotype acuity tests. VA could be reliably assessed in this study due to the children's high level of cooperation. The good degree of cooperation (74%) was possible because examinations were undertaken at schools, thereby facilitating acceptance by the students. Furthermore, during the assessments, a caregiver who knew the child well accompanied each student. These circumstances differ considerably from those in general ophthalmological or optometric practices, where cooperation and success rates are lower in children with learning disabilities.[30] In an unfamiliar setting, children with special needs may become confused or frightened, making ocular examination challenging. The situation is additionally compounded by the children's difficulties in communicating properly. Researchers have also emphasized the importance of the presence of caretakers during the eye examinations of persons with learning difficulties.[31] Besides preparing the patients for the visual assessment, caretakers also provide valuable information regarding each patient's capabilities.

We found that myopia correlated positively with age. In addition, our analyses revealed that both VA and refraction correlated with height. Previous studies conducted among school children also reported a positive correlation between myopia and age,[32],[33],[34] although these studies were not specifically conducted in children with ID. In one report,[32] the incidence of myopia was reported to increase with age children aged 11 years old represented the highest risk group. In another study that assessed the relation between axial ocular dimensions and age, gender, height, and BMI, Roy et al.[34] found that hypermetropic children had a significantly higher BMI than their peers with myopia. However, we found no such correlation between BMI or weight and hypermetropia.

Data on the relationship between VA and stature are scarce, especially in children with ID. In this study, subnormal vision was significantly worse in participants with short stature rather than those with normal stature. Furthermore, myopic shift was significantly greater in participants with normal stature than their peers with short stature.

Studies evaluating visual impairment in persons with visual disability reported that the patient's age, type of ID, and severity of mental disability were associated with an increased risk of visual disorders.[6],[35] Attempts to compare syndromic versus nonsyndromic subgroups have, in most cases, been impossible due to the small sample sizes in these studies, as was the case in our report. The first large-scale study to compare these two subgroups reported that children with syndromic ID were significantly more likely to have a higher incidence of nystagmus and refractive errors.[36] In our analysis, of the nine children who met the definition for syndromic intellectual disability, we identified refractive errors in five with Down syndrome and two with genetic mutation. The prevalence of poor VA and myopic shift was higher in children with syndromic ID. However, our sample size did not permit us to make relevant conclusions.

The main strength of this study is that most of the participants were very co-operative during examinations, and this can be attributed to the fact that vision screening took place in their familiar environment. In addition, we used standardized protocols to decrease inter-examiner discrepancy. To our knowledge, this is the first study that reports full ophthalmologic and orthoptic findings in a group of intellectually disabled children with a detailed medical background. Nevertheless, this study has some limitations that merit discussion. First, our study is a noncomparative, cross-sectional study; therefore, it had all the limitations inherent to these types of study designs. Second, due to the limited number of patients in this study, caution should be exercised when interpreting our results. In addition, because our study is based on a selected and small sample, we cannot apply good statistical evaluation and compare our findings with the general population.


  Conclusions Top


The pediatric population with ID has a high prevalence of preventable visual impairments, refractive errors, and strabismus. Our study has clearly demonstrated the need for and the value of assessing comprehensive visual functions of children with special needs. Nonetheless, a larger study would be required to obtain a more accurate estimate of the prevalence of visual diseases among children with ID in our region. The already available eye services in Saudi Arabia should be utilized to implement mandatory vision assessment, appropriate care management to improve these children's quality of life.

Acknowledgment

The results were not presented at any meeting. The authors would like to thank all the children and their families for participating in the study. We would also like to thank all the staff at the special needs schools for their invaluable help during the research.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
  References Top

1.
Pascolini D, Mariotti SP. Global estimates of visual impairment: 2010. Br J Ophthalmol 2012;96:614-8.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Facts about Intellectual Disability. Cent Dis Control Prev 2020. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/developmentaldisabilities/facts-about-intellectual-disability.html. [Last accessed on 2021 Feb 03].  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Lee K, Cascella M, Marwaha R. Intellectual Disability. In: StatPearls. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2020. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK547654/. [Last accessed on 2021 Feb 03].  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Emerson E, Robertson J. The estimated prevalence of visual impairment among people with learning disabilities in the UK. Electronic Source 2015;35:4-7.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Nielsen LS, Skov L, Jensen H. Visual dysfunctions and ocular disorders in children with developmental delay. I. prevalence, diagnoses and aetiology of visual impairment. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 2007;85:149-56.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
van Splunder J, Stilma JS, Bernsen RM, Evenhuis HM. Prevalence of visual impairment in adults with intellectual disabilities in the Netherlands: Cross-sectional study. Eye (Lond) 2006;20:1004-10.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Welinder LG, Baggesen KL. Visual abilities of students with severe developmental delay in special needs education – A vision screening project in Northern Jutland, Denmark. Acta Ophthalmol 2012;90:721-6.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Das M, Spowart K, Crossley S, Dutton GN. Evidence that children with special needs all require visual assessment. Arch Dis Child 2010;95:888-92.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Sandfeld Nielsen L, Skov L, Jensen H. Visual dysfunctions and ocular disorders in children with developmental delay. II. Aspects of refractive errors, strabismus and contrast sensitivity. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 2007;85:419-26.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Al-Tamimi ER, Shakeel A, Yassin SA, Ali SI, Khan UA. A clinic-based study of refractive errors, strabismus, and amblyopia in pediatric age-group. J Family Community Med 2015;22:158-62.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Chang YS, Shih MH, Tseng SH, Cheng HC, Teng CL. Ophthalmologic abnormalities in high school students with mental retardation in Taiwan. J Formos Med Assoc 2005;104:578-84.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Mocanu V, Horhat R. Prevalence and risk factors of amblyopia among refractive errors in an eastern European population. Medicina (Mex) 2018;54:6.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Salt A, Sargent J. Common visual problems in children with disability. Arch Dis Child 2014;99:1163-8.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
The Royal College of Ophthalmologists. Eye Care Services for Adults with Learning Disabilities, Ophthalmic Serrvices Guidance; 2015. Available from: https://www.rcophth.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Eye-Care-Services-for-Adults-with-Learning-Disabilities.pdf. [Last accessed on 2018 Dec 26].  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
El-Hazmi MA, Al-Swailem AA, Al-Mosa NA, Al-Jarallah AA. Prevalence of mental retardation among children in Saudi Arabia. East Mediterr Health J 2003;9:6-11.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
McQuaid RD, Arvidsson J. Vision examination of children in Riyadh's handicapped children house. J Am Optom Assoc 1992;63:262-5.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
WHO Multicentre Growth Reference Study Group. WHO Child Growth Standards based on length/height, weight and age. Acta Paediatr Suppl 2006;450:76-85.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Firth HV, Hurst JA. Oxford Desk Reference: Clinical Genetics and Genomics. 2nd ed.. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press; 2017.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Flaxman SR, Bourne RRA, Resnikoff S, Ackland P, Braithwaite T, Cicinelli MV, et al. Global causes of blindness and distance vision impairment 1990-2020: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Glob Health 2017;5:e1221-34.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Bourne RR, Flaxman SR, Braithwaite T, Cicinelli MV, Das A, Jonas JB, et al. Magnitude, temporal trends, and projections of the global prevalence of blindness and distance and near vision impairment: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Glob Health 2017;5:e888-97.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Gogate P, Soneji FR, Kharat J, Dulera H, Deshpande M, Gilbert C. Ocular disorders in children with learning disabilities in special education schools of Pune, India. Indian J Ophthalmol 2011;59:223-8.  Back to cited text no. 21
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
22.
Vora U, Khandekar R, Natrajan S, Al-Hadrami K. Refractive error and visual functions in children with special needs compared with the first grade school students in Oman. Middle East Afr J Ophthalmol 2010;17:297-302.  Back to cited text no. 22
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
23.
Ikeda J, Davitt BV, Ultmann M, Maxim R, Cruz OA. Brief report: Incidence of ophthalmologic disorders in children with autism. J Autism Dev Disord 2013;43:1447-51.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Al Wadaani FA, Amin TT, Ali A, Khan AR. Prevalence and pattern of refractive errors among primary school children in Al Hassa, Saudi Arabia. Glob J Health Sci 2012;5:125-34.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Aldebasi YH. Prevalence of correctable visual impairment in primary school children in Qassim Province, Saudi Arabia. J Optom 2014;7:168-76.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Alrahili NH, Jadidy ES, Alahmadi BS, Abdula'al MF, Jadidy AS, Alhusaini AA, et al. Prevalence of uncorrected refractive errors among children aged 3-10 years in western Saudi Arabia. Saudi Med J 2017;38:804-10.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Anstice NS, Thompson B. The measurement of visual acuity in children: An evidence-based update. Clin Exp Optom 2014;97:3-11.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Mody KH, Kothari MT, Sil A, Doshi P, Walinjkar JA, Chatterjee D. Comparison of lea gratings with cardiff acuity cards for vision testing of preverbal children. Indian J Ophthalmol 2012;60:541-3.  Back to cited text no. 28
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
29.
Drover JR, Wyatt LM, Stager DR, Birch EE. The teller acuity cards are effective in detecting amblyopia. Optom Vis Sci 2009;86:755-9.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Pilling RF, Outhwaite L, Bruce A. Assessing visual function in children with complex disabilities: The Bradford visual function box. Br J Ophthalmol 2016;100:1118-21.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.
Logan NS, Gilmartin B. School vision screening, ages 5-16 years: The evidence-base for content, provision and efficacy. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2004;24:481-92.  Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.
Fan DS, Lam DS, Lam RF, Lau JT, Chong KS, Cheung EY, et al. Prevalence, incidence, and progression of myopia of school children in Hong Kong. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2004;45:1071-5.  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.
Matalia J, Anegondi NS, Veeboy L, Roy AS. Age and myopia associated optical coherence tomography of retina and choroid in pediatric eyes. Indian J Ophthalmol 2018;66:77-82.  Back to cited text no. 33
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
34.
Roy A, Kar M, Mandal D, Ray RS, Kar C. Variation of axial ocular dimensions with age, sex, height, BMI-and their relation to refractive status. J Clin Diagn Res 2015;9:AC01-4.  Back to cited text no. 34
    
35.
van Splunder J, Stilma JS, Bernsen RM, Evenhuis HM. Prevalence of ocular diagnoses found on screening 1539 adults with intellectual disabilities. Ophthalmology 2004;111:1457-63.  Back to cited text no. 35
    
36.
Akinci A, Oner O, Bozkurt OH, Guven A, Degerliyurt A, Munir K. Refractive errors and ocular findings in children with intellectual disability: A controlled study. J AAPOS 2008;12:477-81.  Back to cited text no. 36
    



 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3]



 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
 Related articles
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
  In this article
Abstract
Introduction
Material and Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusions
References
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed546    
    Printed24    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded45    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal