Stevensonkudsk8923

While the aetiology of acquired synergistic divergence in this case is unclear, we can be confident it is unlikely to be of congenital origin as it was not noted until adulthood and after five years of investigations. This report will discuss possible aetiologies of acquired synergistic divergence and, contrary to current literature, suggest clinicians should consider the possibility that synergistic divergence can be acquired, though is likely to be even rarer than its congenital form.

To investigate if the EyeChart app gives accurate visual acuity (VA) measurements that are comparable to those achieved using traditional VA charts.

Twenty-four participants (aged 18-27 years, mean 20.13 ± 1.78 years) with VA of 6/60 Snellen or better regardless of any strabismus, amblyopia, or ocular pathology volunteered for this prospective study. The best-corrected monocular VA of each participant's right eye was measured on the Snellen chart at 6 m, the ETDRS chart at 3 m, and the EyeChart app presented on an iPhone SE at 1.2 m (4ft).

The mean VA scores obtained were -0.13 ± 0.08 logMAR on the Snellen chart, -0.11 ± 0.08 logMAR on the ETDRS chart, and -0.09 ± 0.07 logMAR on the EyeChart app. After Bonferroni Correction adjustments were applied, a significant difference was found between the EyeChart app and the Snellen chart (t = -3.756, p = 0.003), however the difference between the EyeChart app and the ETDRS chart did not reach statistical significance (t = -2.391, p = 0.076). The EyeChart app had a strong correlation with both the Snellen (r = 0.79, p < 0.01) and ETDRS charts (r = 0.88, p < 0.01). The Coefficients of Agreement revealed a variation of less than one logMAR line between the EyeChart app and the traditional VA charts (Snellen 0.09 logMAR; ETDRS 0.08 logMAR).

This study found that the EyeChart app gives accurate VA scores that are comparable to those achieved using the gold-standard ETDRS chart in a healthy young adult population. However, the accuracy and repeatability of the EyeChart app when testing a patient population must be investigated before it can be integrated into clinical practice.

This study found that the EyeChart app gives accurate VA scores that are comparable to those achieved using the gold-standard ETDRS chart in a healthy young adult population. However, the accuracy and repeatability of the EyeChart app when testing a patient population must be investigated before it can be integrated into clinical practice.

Pre-school orthoptic vision screening (POVS) was implemented by the Scottish government and is a standardised assessment to promote early detection of visual problems in children. The target conditions are amblyopia, refractive errors and strabismus. We present the preliminary findings for the first three years of the screening program.

The data from POVS was collected retrospectively. The data includes screening years 2013 to 2016 inclusive. Data was collected from each health board in Scotland. We report the coverage, referral rate, true positives and positive predictive values.

A total of 167,962 children were due to have vision screening over the 3 screening years included in this paper. This figure does not include the children that opted out of the eye test (mean opt-out rate 1.8%) and children that already attend the hospital eye service (mean already attend rate 3.1%). The POVS program had a mean coverage of 85.5%, ranging from 63.7% to 94.8% between health boards. Over the 3 year screening period, the mean referral rate was found to be 17.9%. The mean true positive rate was 88.9%, and the mean positive predictive value was 86.9%.

The Scottish data set on pre-school orthoptic vision screening has shown excellent mean coverage. A consistently high true positive rate over the three screening years demonstrates it is a sensitive screening program, which is essential for the detection of visual problems in children.

The Scottish data set on pre-school orthoptic vision screening has shown excellent mean coverage. A consistently high true positive rate over the three screening years demonstrates it is a sensitive screening program, which is essential for the detection of visual problems in children.

There is a high rate of strabismus, in particular esotropia, in children with Down syndrome or developmental delay, which frequently requires surgical correction. A paper in 1994 advocated that the surgical dose be adjusted due to an altered response in these children. The aim of this literature review is to evaluate the available evidence to establish whether an altered surgical approach is required in either population.

A literature review was conducted using PubMed and Web of Knowledge. Only English language papers were eligible for inclusion. https://www.selleckchem.com/products/snx-2112.html The papers were collated in chronological order for analysis, and their references searched for further relevant papers. Forward citation searches were also undertaken.

A 2 × 2 comparison is made between publications on Down syndrome (in isolation) and developmental delay populations (including Down syndrome) with adjusted versus non-adjusted surgery. Published surgical success rates on esotropia from unaltered surgical doses range from 62.0%-85.7% (four papers) in the Down syndrome cohort, with none of the adjusted surgeries having a successful outcome. Surgical success rates from adjusted surgical doses in developmental delay cohort range from 37.5%-86.0% (seven papers), with one unadjusted surgical success rate of 76.0%. The results across the studies are summarised in a table and discussed.

An exaggerated surgical effect in individuals with developmental delay has been reported, and this population may benefit from a reduced surgical dose. Published research does not support giving a reduced surgical dose in individuals with Down syndrome, but more research needs to be done to make a definitive conclusion.

An exaggerated surgical effect in individuals with developmental delay has been reported, and this population may benefit from a reduced surgical dose. Published research does not support giving a reduced surgical dose in individuals with Down syndrome, but more research needs to be done to make a definitive conclusion.