Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
  • Users Online: 2047
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page

   Table of Contents      
Year : 2003  |  Volume : 51  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 107

Is skipping child population an indication of unreliability of APEDS data on hyperopia?

Correspondence Address:
P Roy

Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

PMID: 12701877

Rights and PermissionsRights and Permissions

How to cite this article:
Roy P. Is skipping child population an indication of unreliability of APEDS data on hyperopia?. Indian J Ophthalmol 2003;51:107

How to cite this URL:
Roy P. Is skipping child population an indication of unreliability of APEDS data on hyperopia?. Indian J Ophthalmol [serial online] 2003 [cited 2020 Aug 10];51:107. Available from: http://www.ijo.in/text.asp?2003/51/1/107/14723

Dear Editor,

I read with great interest the article "Population-based study of spectacles use in Southern India" by Dandona et al.[1] The authors have drawn the attention of readers to the references containing various aspects of the Andhra Pradesh Eye Disease Study (APEDS). I have read many of these referred articles too, in order to satisfy my curiosity as to why the child population 15 years has been excluded from the abovementioned study.

I found that APEDS defined hyperopia in 15 years age group as having spherical equivalent refractive error higher than + 0.5 D under cycloplegia.[2] The prevalence of hyperopia in the 15 years age group was as high as 62.6%, which obviously envisaged a huge number of physiological hyperopia requiring no correction. Data such as these can move major implications for policy making.

Let me refer the readers to comparable data from studies conducted under the 'Refractive Error Study in Children (RESC) protocol' where the hyperopia was defined realistically as spherical equivalent refractive error of atleast +2.00 D or more under cycloplegia.[3],[4] The prevalence rates of hyperopia in these studies were only 0.8% and 7.7% respectively. The huge difference of the prevalence rate of hyperopia between APEDS and RESC cannot be due to the slight difference in the age groups these studies addressed (APEDS: 0-15 years; RESC: 7-15 years[3] and 5-15 years[4]) but because of the difference of magnitude of refractive error considered for definition (APEDS: +0.5 D and RESC: +1.75 D).

There are reasons to believe that the authors too are aware of these issues. This is evidenced by the fact that they have: 1) refrained from projecting this data for estimating the total number of hyperopia in children.[5] 2) skipped child population in the "Population-based study of spectacles use in Southern India" as referred to in the beginning of this communication.

  References Top

Dandona R, Dandona L, Vilas K, Giridhar P, Prasad MN, Srinivas M. Population-based study of spectacles use in Sothern India. Indian J Ophthalmol 2002;50:145-55.  Back to cited text no. 1
Dandona R, Dandona L. Review of findings of Andhra Pradesh Eye Disease Study: Policy implications for eye-care services. Indian J Ophthalmol 2001;49:215-34.  Back to cited text no. 2
Dandona R, Dandona L, Srinivas M, Sahare P, Narsaiah S, Munoz SR. Refractive error in children in rural population in India. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2002;43:615-22.  Back to cited text no. 3
Murthy GVS, Gupta SK, Ellwein LB, Munoz SR, Pokharel GP, Sanga L, et al. Refractive Error in children in an urban population in New Delhi. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2002;43:623-31.  Back to cited text no. 4
Dandona R, Dandona L, Naduvilath TJ, Srinivas M, McCarty CA, Rao GN. Refractive errors in an urban population in Southern India: Andhra Pradesh Eye Disease Study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1999;40:2810-18.  Back to cited text no. 5


    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

  In this article

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded151    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal