|Title||COMPARISON OF MYOPIA PREVALENCE IN ONE COMMUNITY ACROSS 40 YEARS|
|Author, Co-Author||Karla Zadnik, Donald Mutti, Nina Friedman, Pamela Qualley, Lisa Jones, G. Mitchell, H.s. Kim, Melvin Moeschberger|
|Abstract|| PURPOSE. The prevalence of myopia and whether it is on the rise in modern society is a topic of worldwide debate. The community of Orinda, California houses an epidemiological study of refractive error in schoolchildren now and was the site of a vision screening study in the late 1950s, enabling investigators to make a direct comparison of prevalence across 40 years.
METHODS. The study is a community-based cohort study of schoolchildren (ages 6 to 14 years) conducted on four of the campuses of the Orinda Union School District in Orinda, California, a predominantly Caucasian, high socioeconomic status community. A sample of 393 eighth graders from the school years beginning in 1991 through 1995 is described here. We measured refractive error using non-cycloplegic retinoscopy and both non-cycloplegic and cycloplegic autorefraction.
RESULTS. The prevalence of myopia (defined by the Orinda vision screening study as at least -0.50 D of myopia in the 'sphere' portion of the refraction) as measured by non-cycloplegic retinoscopy for 1991-1995 is 24.7% (SE 0.022) compared to a prevalence of 14.9% in the MCT Study in the late 1950s. The higher prevalence among the small number of Asians in our sample (45.2%) increases our overall prevalence estimates, as the prevalence of myopia among Caucasians is only 22.3%. The data across all five years comparing Asians to white produce an odds ratio of 2.88 (95% confidence interval 1.49 to 5.56) for the odds of being myopic given Asian ethnicity.
CONCLUSION. The prevalence of myopia in Orinda, California appears to have increased during the latter half of the twentieth century. However, some of that apparent increase is attributable to the changing demographics of the community, while some may be due to differences in measurement methods and criteria defining myopia. Supported by NIH-NEI grants U10-EY08893 and R21-EY12273.
|Affiliation of Co-Authors||Ohio State University, University of California, Ohio State University, Ohio State University|