Publications (3)10.19 Total impact
-
Article: Stability of visual acuity improvement following discontinuation of amblyopia treatment in children aged 7 to 12 years.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To assess the stability of visual acuity improvement during the first year after cessation of amblyopia treatment other than spectacle wear in children aged 7 to 12 years. At the completion of a multicenter randomized trial during which amblyopia treated with patching and atropine improved by at least 2 lines on the electronic Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study testing protocol, 80 patients aged 7 to 12 years were followed up while not receiving treatment (other than spectacle wear) for 1 year. Ten letters or more (> or =2 lines) worsening of visual acuity (measured using the electronic Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study testing protocol) during the year following treatment discontinuation. During the year following cessation of treatment, the cumulative probability of worsening visual acuity (> or =2 lines) was 7% (95% confidence interval, 3%-17%); 82% of patients maintained an increase in visual acuity of 10 letters or more compared with their visual acuity before starting treatment. Visual acuity improvement occurring during amblyopia treatment is sustained in most children aged 7 to 12 years for at least 1 year after discontinuing treatment other than spectacle wear. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00094692.Archives of Ophthalmology 05/2007; 125(5):655-9. · 3.71 Impact Factor -
Article: A symptom survey and quality of life questionnaire for nasolacrimal duct obstruction in children.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To develop and validate a new parental questionnaire addressing symptoms and health-related quality of life (HRQL) in childhood nasolacrimal duct obstruction (NLDO). Cross-sectional study. Children ages 6 to younger than 48 months with and without clinical signs of NLDO. A new questionnaire was developed using semistructured interviews with parents of children with NLDO and through discussions with expert clinicians. Questionnaires were completed by parents of children with and without NLDO. Cronbach's alpha was calculated as a measure of internal-consistency reliability. Factor analysis was used to evaluate a priori subscales: symptoms and HRQL. Discriminant construct validity was assessed by comparing questionnaire scores between children with and without NLDO and between affected and unaffected eyes of children with unilateral NLDO. Instrument responsiveness was determined by comparing presurgical and postsurgical intervention scores in a subset of NLDO patients who underwent surgical treatment. The NLDO questionnaire score. Eighty-seven children were enrolled, 56 with and 31 without NLDO. All but 2 questions on the questionnaire showed a good distribution of responses, a high correlation with the rest of the questionnaire, and excellent discrimination between patients with and without NLDO. Cronbach's alpha values were good for the overall questionnaire (0.95), and for 2 predetermined subscales: symptoms (0.95) and HRQL (0.85). On a 0 to 4 scale, NLDO patients had worse scores compared with non-NLDO patients for both symptoms (mean difference, 2.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.9-2.3) and HRQL (mean difference, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.9-1.5) subscales. The NLDO patients had worse scores before intervention compared with after intervention for both the symptoms (mean difference, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.6-2.9) and HRQL (mean difference, 1.4; 95% CI, 0.8-2.1) subscales. Finally, NLDO patients had worse symptom scores for affected eyes compared with unaffected eyes (mean difference, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.9-2.6). This novel NLDO questionnaire is useful in quantifying parental perception of symptoms and HRQL in childhood NLDO. The questionnaire may have a role in future clinical studies of NLDO.Ophthalmology 10/2006; 113(9):1675-80. · 5.45 Impact Factor -
Article: A randomized pilot study of near activities versus non-near activities during patching therapy for amblyopia.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To plan a future randomized clinical trial, we conducted a pilot study to determine whether children randomized to near or non-near activities would perform prescribed activities. A secondary aim was to obtain a preliminary estimate of the effect of near versus non-near activities on amblyopic eye visual acuity, when combined with 2 hours of daily patching. Sixty-four children, 3 to less than 7 years of age, with anisometropic, strabismic, or combined amblyopia (20/40 to 20/400) were randomly assigned to receive either 2 hours of daily patching with near activities or 2 hours of daily patching without near activities. Parents completed daily calendars for 4 weeks recording the activities performed while patched and received a weekly telephone call in which they were asked to describe the activities performed during the previous 2 hours of patching. Visual acuity was assessed at 4 weeks. The children assigned to near visual activities performed more near activities than those assigned to non-near activities (by calendars, mean 1.6 +/- 0.5 hours versus 0.2 +/- 0.2 hours daily, P < 0.001; by telephone interviews, 1.6 +/- 0.4 hours versus 0.4 +/- 0.5 hours daily, P < 0.001). After 4 weeks of treatment, there was a suggestion of greater improvement in amblyopic eye visual acuity in those assigned to near visual activities (mean 2.6 lines versus 1.6 lines, P = 0.07). The treatment group difference in visual acuity was present for patients with severe amblyopia but not moderate amblyopia. Children patched and instructed to perform near activities for amblyopia spent more time performing those near activities than children who were instructed to perform non-near activities. Our results suggest that performing near activities while patched may be beneficial in treating amblyopia. Based on our data, a formal randomized amblyopia treatment trial of patching with and without near activities is both feasible and desirable.Journal of American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus 04/2005; 9(2):129-36. · 1.03 Impact Factor
