Medical and Dental Consultantsí Association of Nigeria
Home - About us - Editorial board - Search - Ahead of print - Current issue - Archives - Submit article - Instructions - Subscribe - Advertise - Contacts - Login 
  Users Online: 1913   Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
 

  Table of Contents 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2014  |  Volume : 17  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 106-111

Refractive errors in patients attending a private hospital in Jos, Nigeria


Department of Ophthalmology, Benue State University Teaching Hospital, Makurdi, Benue State, Nigeria

Date of Acceptance02-May-2013
Date of Web Publication10-Dec-2013

Correspondence Address:
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/1119-3077.122863

Rights and Permissions
   Abstract 

Objective: This study was carried out to determine the prevalence and pattern of refractive error in patients presenting to a private hospital.
Materials and Methods: Records of all patients who presented at the hospital from 2000 to 2009 with visual acuity (VA) of 6/9 or less and showed improvement in distance vision of one or more lines with refraction were reviewed. The eye with the better presenting visual acuity was used for classifying the patient. The spherical equivalent refraction was used with the formula (sphere plus cylinder/2).
Results: Two thousand eight hundred ninety eight patients were seen at the hospital for various eye problems. Six hundred one (20.7%) patients with distant VA which improved with refraction were considered for this analysis. Two hundred twenty one (36.8%) of patients with refractive error were visually impaired (VA <6/12-3/60). Blindness (<3/60 - none perception of light) was seen in 91 (15.1%) of the patients, seven of whom were aphakic. Best corrected visual acuity increased the number of patients with normal visual acuity from 289 (48.1%) to 579 (96.3%). Overall visual impairment (VI) (<6/12-3/60) was reduced from 221 (36.8%) to 22 (3.6%). Severe visual impairment and blindness were completely eliminated just with refractive correction. Of those with refractive error, there were 35.8% with myopia, 29.5% with hypermetropia and 34.8% with astigmatism. Males had slightly more myopia and astigmatism, and female more hypermetropia though the difference was not statistically significant. Refractive error was seen more among the students 207 (34.4%) and civil servants 189 (31.4%) and least among the artisans 7 (1.2%). Anisometropia of ≤ 1 D, >1-2 D, >2-3 and > 3 D were found in 76.5%, 11.8%, 5% and 5.0% respectively.
Conclusion: The study shows that refractive error is a common cause of VI and myopia is the most common type. It confirms that most of the refractive error can be corrected with off-the-shelf spectacles.

Keywords: Anisometropia, astigmatism, hypermetropia, myopia, refractive error


How to cite this article:
Malu K, Ojabo C. Refractive errors in patients attending a private hospital in Jos, Nigeria. Niger J Clin Pract 2014;17:106-11

How to cite this URL:
Malu K, Ojabo C. Refractive errors in patients attending a private hospital in Jos, Nigeria. Niger J Clin Pract [serial online] 2014 [cited 2019 Sep 21];17:106-11. Available from: http://www.njcponline.com/text.asp?2014/17/1/106/122863


   Introduction Top


Recent surveys have estimated that 285 million people worldwide are visually impaired from all causes, and 153 million of these, (including eight million blind) from uncorrected refractive errors. [1] The distribution of refractive error varies with education, urbanization and race, and has a familial tendency. Other risk factors are involvement in sports and outdoor activities. [2] Visual impairment (VI) from uncorrected refractive errors affects children and adults and sometimes leads to loss of education and employment opportunities, loss of economic gain for individuals and their families, societies, and also leads to impaired quality of life. [3]

Most of the studies performed on refractive in Africa are mainly among school children and show refractive error (RE) to be a significant cause of VI. In Ghana, [4] RE was responsible for VI in 85.9% of the children tested. In Tanzania [5] , RE was found in 6.1% of children and accounted for 88.5% of VI. In a South African survey in children the prevalence of uncorrected visual acuity (VA) of ≤6/12 was 1.4% and RE was the cause of reduced vision in 63.6% and amblyopia in 7.3%.

Studies in Nigeria have shown RE to be the leading ocular condition and cause of VI. [6],[7],[8],[9],[10],[11] The Nigeria National Blindness and VI Study found uncorrected RE responsible for 77.9% mild VI, 57.1% of moderate VI, 11.3% of severe VI and 1.4% of blindness. [12]

Refractive error is one of the simplest and most effective treatable causes of VI and blindness, a point noted by various studies. [3],[4],[5],[6],[7],[8],[9],[10],[11],[12],[13] Though RE is easily treatable, refractive services are not easily available or affordable by many people in developing nations.

This paper reports the prevalence and pattern of RE seen at a private hospital in Nigeria and contributes information necessary for the planning of eye care services in this region.


   Materials and Methods Top


This is a descriptive retrospective hospital based study of patients with impaired VA that improved with refraction. Records of all consecutive patients who presented at the hospital from the year 2000 to 2009 with VA of 6/9 or less and showed improvement of one or more lines in distance vision with refraction were reviewed. The eye with the better presenting visual acuity (PVA) was used for classifying the patients. The formula sphere plus cylinder/2 was used to determine SER.

The patients' demographic information such as age, sex, ethnic group, occupation, and address were retrieved from the records. The patients' complaints, family history of use of spectacles, examination findings, including VA and diagnosis were also retrieved.

The unaided distance VA was determined using a Snellen lettered chart for the literates and the Snellen's tumbling 'E' chart for the illiterate patients at 6 m, 4 m, and 1 m (counting finger) as the case may be. Each eye was tested separately and then with both eyes open and the vision recorded appropriately. The vision was further measured with a pin hole and or with glasses if normally worn. This stage was usually carried out by nurses. The consultant ophthalmologist and optometrist carried out the objective refraction with retinoscopy (Heine brand) and subjective refraction using trial lenses. The best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was recorded.

Normal visual acuity for the purpose of this study was defined as a PVA equal to or better than 6/12 in the better eye;

Mild visual impairment (Mi. VI) was defined as a VA of less than 6/12, but equal to or better than 6/18 in the better eye,

Moderate visual impairment was defined as a PVA of less than 6/18, but equal to or better than 6/60) in the better eye,

Severe visual impairment as a PVA of less than 6/60, but equal to or better than 3/60 in the better eye, and

Blindness was defined as a PVA of less than 3/60 in the better eye.

Low myopia was defined as < -0.50 D to > -5.0 D,

High myopia as ≤ -5.0 D to > -10.0 D and

Extreme myopia as (≤ -10.0 D).

Low Hypermetropia was defined as >+0.5 D but <+5.0 D,

High hypermetropia as (≥+5.0 D but <+10.0 D) and

Extreme hypermetropia as (≥+10.0 D.

Permission to use the records of patients for the study was obtained from the management of the Hospital. The study also complied with Helsinki declaration and subsequent revisions concerning human subjects.

Statistical analyzes were carried out using the SPSS version 17.0 software (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Chi-square test was used to calculate the difference between percentages and t-test was used to calculate the difference between means. P < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.


   Results Top


There were 2898 patients seen at the hospital for various eye problems between 2000 and 2009. Six hundred one (20.7%) patients with distant vision which improved with refraction were considered for this analysis. Their ages ranged from 5 years to 85 years (SD ± 17.5). [Figure 1] show the age distribution. Two hundred twenty one (36.8%) patients with RE were visually impaired (VA < 6/12-3/60). Blindness (<3/60-NPL) was seen in 91 (15.1%) of the patients, seven of whom were aphakic. [Figure 2] shows the presenting and BCVA of patients with RE. [Table 4] shows the gender distribution of patients with anisometropia.
Figure 1: Age distribution of patients with refractive errors

Click here to view
Table 4: Gender distribution of patients with anisometropia


Click here to view


Myopia alone was seen in 215 (35.8%) of the patients, hypermetropia with aphakia was present in 177 (29.5%), and aphakia alone in 7 (1.2%)). Astigmatism (inclusive of myopic and hypermetropic astigmatism) was found in 209 (34.8%). Astigmatism with-the-rule (WTR) was present in 105 (17.5%), astigmatism against-the-rule (ATR) was seen in 86 (14.3%) and oblique astigmatism in 18 (3%) of patients. [Figure 3] shows the types of RE in the patients seen at the hospital.
Figure 2: Presenting and best corrected visual acuity (WHO and International Standard)

Click here to view
Figure 3: Distribution of types of refractive error

Click here to view


Overall more males were seen with myopia and astigmatism than with hypermetropia, while females had the three conditions evenly distributed. This difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.349). [Table 1] shows the sex distribution of patients with RE.

In all, more people in ages 11-20 and 41-50 years presented with RE. Myopia increased from 42 (19.5%) in the age group 11-20-52 (24.2%) in ages 41-50 years. Hypermetropia was more prevalent in the age group 41-50 years, accounting for 38 (21.5%), whereas astigmatism was seen more in the age group 11-20 years accounting for 53 (25.4%). This did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.913). Few patients presented with RE after the age of 70 years. Age distribution of RE is shown in [Table 2], [Table 3].
Table 1: Sex distribution of patients with refractive error


Click here to view
Table 2: Age distribution of refraction types


Click here to view
{Figure 3}
Figure 4: Distribution of refractive errors in different occupational groups

Click here to view
Table 3: Sex distribution of spherical equivalent refraction


Click here to view


Refractive error was seen more among the students 207 (34.4%) and civil servants in 189 (31.4%) and least among the artisans 7 (1.2%) This difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.425) [Figure 4]. The spherical equivalent was taken of the lenses of the eye with the BCVA. One hundred seventy four 174 (29.0%) patients had < -0.25 D to - 0.50 D and + 0.25 D to + 0.50 D. Low myopia was seen in 254 (42.3%), high myopia was found in 21 (3.5%) and extreme myopia in 4 (0.7%). Hypermetropia of ≥+0.5 D but <+5.0 D was seen in 139 (23.1%), high hypermetropia was found in 2 (0.3%) and extreme hypermetropia was seen in 7 (1.2%). The SER is shown in [Figure 5].
Figure 5: Spherical equivalent refraction in patients

Click here to view


Anisometropia was present in 221 (36.8%) of patients with RE. The anisometropia of ≤ 1 D was present in 169 (76.5%), that of >1-2 D was found in 26 (11.8%), of > 2-3 D in 11 (5.0%) and > 3 D in 15 (6.7%) of the patients. Low and high anisometropia were more prevalent among the females 88 (80.7%) and 9 (8.3%) respectively as opposed to males. More males 25 (22.3%) had medium anisometropia (>1-3 D). In all more males 112 (50.6%) than females 109 (49.3%) were found to have anisometropia. This difference was not statistically significant. Of the 32 and 130 subjects respectively in age groups 0-10 and 11-20, 11 (34.4%) and 49 (37.7%) had anisometropia.


   Discussion Top


This study shows that uncorrected distant RE had a significant contribution to morbidity in patients attending a hospital eye clinic. The patients with distant refractive error, 221 (36.8%) were visually impaired (<6/12-3/60), while 91 (15.1%) (inclusive of those with aphakia) were blind (<3/60-NPL).

After correction of refractive error the number of patients with normal VA (>6/12) increased to 579 (96.3%), thus virtually doubling the number of patients with normal VA. Appropriate refraction and correction also reduced the number of patients with mild and moderate VI to 8 (1.3%) and 14 (2.3%) respectively. VI of < 6/12-3/60 was reduced to 22 (3.6%) and severe VI and blindness were completely eliminated just with refractive correction.

This confirms the point noted by others, [3 ],[4],[5],[6],[7],[8],[9],[10],[11],[12],[13] that RE is one of the simplest and most effective treatable causes of VI and blindness. Simple provision of corrective spectacles could have prevented 15.1% of blindness and reduced VI by 34.5% in this study group. The same effect has been found in various studies where correction of RE significantly reduced the burden of blindness. In India, [14] and in Brazil [15] the prevalence of blindness in older adults decreased with refractive correction. In school children, the prevalence of uncorrected visual impairment was reduced from 4.82% to 0.41% with refractive correction. [15]

In school-age-children, prescription and spectacle provision remains the most cost-effective means for addressing this readily treatable cause of VI and blindness, especially in developing nations. The Nigeria National Blindness and VI Study [12] also found improvement in VA post refraction in all categories of VI.

In the present study myopia was the most common RE seen among the patients. This was followed by astigmatism, and then hypermetropia and aphakia. This agrees with the previous clinical studies in the country and elsewhere, which show that myopia is the most common refractive cause of VI. [16],[17],[18] However, Ayanniyi et al [19] in a private optometry practice in Ado-Ekiti Nigeria and Bagaiya and Pam. [20] in Kaduna State North Central Nigeria among University community both found hypermetropia to be the commonest RE. The Nigeria National Blindness and VI Study, [12] a population based survey of those aged 40 years and above, found hypermetropia in 52.1% (95% confidence Interval (CI), 50.8-53.3%) when they excluded those with significant lens opacities. Their crude prevalence of myopia was 9.4% (95% CI, 8.7-10.2%) after excluding participants with lens opacities. The difference could be as a result of high student population in our study as opposed to population based survey with a cut off age of 40 years and above. Our hospital based study however agrees with other studies in Africa and among black Africans who found myopia as the most common RE, but at a lower prevalence than what is seen among the European and South East Asian Nations. [21],[22],[23],[24],[25],[26] The prevalence of myopia is on the increase world-wide and especially in the South East Asian countries. [24],[25],[26] Several risk factors such as genetics, family history of two myopic parents, [27] higher education, rise in socio-economic status, reduced exposure to outdoor sports/activities and increased near work have been associated with myopia; thus giving rise to the 'use-abuse' theory, which shows an increase in myopia with an increase in hours of near reading. [20],[28],[29],[30] This being a retrospective and clinical study these factors were not probed into in detail.

When the spherical equivalent was taken into consideration there were more patients with low myopia than high and extreme myopia. High myopia was present in 0.7% and extreme myopia in 0.1% of the total patients in this study. Thus, high and extreme myopia was present in 0.8% of the study population. This is in agreement with the findings of 0.7% high myopia in the Nigeria National Blindness and VI Study. [12] Other population based surveys have shown myopia to increase with age. [12],[31] This study shows an apparent increase with age in those between 11 years and 50 years, but a decrease thereafter. Myopia sometimes shows an increase in the early twenties, and sometimes later for those who get involved in more intensive studies later in life. [30] Nuclear lens scleroses later on in life could also lead to myopic shift in the 41-50 year olds.

Refractive errors were more evenly distributed among the females, with myopia (34.8%), astigmatism (33.2%) and hypermetropia (32.0%) having almost the same frequency. Fewer men (26.4%) had hypermetropia compared to females (33.2%). This compares favourably with the findings in the Bangladesh and the Nigeria National Blindness and VI Study and where myopia was found to be more common in men, and hypermetropia more common in women. [29],[12] Though myopia is commoner in males, high myopia has been found commoner in females as seen in this study and the Bangladesh study. [29] The Bangladesh study also showed an association between myopia and higher education, and it was also commoner in those with office jobs than subjects without formal employment. This study found a similar association of myopia with those in civil service-those involved in 'white collar jobs' as opposed to the artisans. The Nigeria National Blindness and VI Study [12] however found higher prevalence of myopia among the illiterates, laborers, and rural dwellers.

In the case of hypermetropia, low and extreme hypermetropia was more prevalent. Aphakia contributed to the presence of extreme hypermetropia ≥+10 D. This study found patients in the age group 0-10 years had more hypermetropia and this agrees with previous studies. [16],[17],[18],[19],[20] Physiological hypermetropia occurs normally from birth to about 7 years; thereafter, with the changes in the axial length, cornea, and lens, the eye moves towards emmetropia and may even overshoot towards myopia. [33]

Students were also found to have more hypermetropia than myopia in the present study contrasting the "use-abuse" theory.

Astigmatism was seen more in the age group 11-20. More patients with RE had astigmatism WTR followed by, astigmatism ATR and then oblique astigmatism. This is the usual pattern in life whereby astigmatism WTR has a higher prevalence in the general population. [32],[33] The study in Bangladesh adults however found more subjects with ATR astigmatism, followed by oblique astigmatism and then WTR astigmatism. They found ATR astigmatism and oblique astigmatism increased with age. [29]

The patients with RE had various degrees of anisometropia. The majority (76.5%) of them had anisometropia of ≤ 1 D and 16.8% had medium anisometropia (>1 to 3 D). Adeoti and Egbewale [34] found 57.7% with anisometropia of 0.25 D and 6.6% of 2 D and above in an Oshogbo hospital eye clinic, Nigeria among patients with RE. Low and high anisometropia was more among the females. The males had more of medium anisometropia. This is similar to the findings by Bourne [29] in a population based study. They found women more commonly with anisometropia of >1.0 D and it increased with age. Anisometropia in adults can significantly affect high grade binocular interactions and depth of perception. [35],[36] The degree of anisometropia is important when it comes to the consideration of making mass production low cost spectacles. In this study about 76.5% of patients with ≤ 1 D anisometropia could benefit from such 'off-the-shelf' spectacle corrective glasses.

The study found uncorrected aphakia in 7 (1.2%) of patients with RE. With the advent of intraocular lens implant this may cease to be a problem.

This study shows that RE is a significant cause of Blindness and VI, and it could easily be corrected by the provision of spectacles.


   Acknowledgments Top


We are very grateful to the management of Adoose Specialist Hospital for allowing us access, and the use of the patient records. Prof. AO Malu helped with proofreading of this manuscript and offering constructive criticism.

 
   References Top

1.Resnikoff S, Pascolini D, Mariotti SP, Pokharel GP. Global magnitude of visual impairment caused by uncorrected refractive errors in 2004. Bull World Health Organ 2008;86:63-70.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.Jones LA, Sinnott LT, Mutti DO, Mitchell GL, Moeschberger ML, Zadnik K. Parental history of myopia, sports and outdoor activities, and future myopia. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2007;48:3524-32.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.Wang JJ, Mitchell P, Smith W. Vision and low self-rated health: The Blue Mountains Eye Study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2000;41:49-54.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.Ovenseri-Ogbomo GO, Assien R. Refractive error in school children in Agona Swedru, Ghana. S Afr Optom 2010;69:86-92.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.Wedner SH, Ross DA, Todd J, Anemona A, Balira R, Foster A. Myopia in secondary school students in Mwanza City, Tanzania: The need for a national screening programme. Br J Ophthalmol 2002;86:1200-6.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.Scott SC, Ajaiyeoba AI. Eye diseases in general out-patient clinic in Ibadan. Niger J Med 2003;12:76-80.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.Ashaye AO, Asuzu MC. Ocular findings seen among the staff of an institution in Lagos, Nigeria. West Afr J Med 2005;24:96-9.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.Okoye OI, Umeh RE. Eye health of industrial workers in Southeastern Nigeria. West Afr J Med 2002;21:132-7.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.Abdu L. Prevalence and causes of blindness and low vision in Dambatta local government area, Kano State, Nigeria. Niger J Med 2002;11:108-12.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.Adeoti CO. Prevalence and causes of blindness in a tropical African population. West Afr J Med 2004;23:249-52.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.Fafowora OF. Prevalence of blindness in a rural ophthalmically underserved Nigerian community. West Afr J Med 1996;15:228-31.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.Ezelum C, Razavi H, Sivasubramaniam S, Gilbert CE, Murthy GV, Entekume G, et al. Refractive error in Nigerian adults: Prevalence, type, and spectacle coverage. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2011;52:5449-56.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.Dandona R, Dandona L. Refractive error blindness. Bull World Health Organ 2001;79:237-43.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.Nirmalan PK, Thulasiraj RD, Maneksha V, Rahmathullah R, Ramakrishnan R, Padmavathi A, et al. A population based eye survey of older adults in Tirunelveli district of south India: Blindness, cataract surgery, and visual outcomes. Br J Ophthalmol 2002;86:505-12.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.Salomão SR, Mitsuhiro MR, Belfort Jr R. Visual impairment and blindness: An overview of prevalence and causes in Brazil. An Acad Bras Cienc 2009;81:539-49.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.Adeoti CO, Egbewale BE. Refractive errors in Mercyland Specialist Hospital, Osogbo, Western Nigeria. Niger Postgrad Med J 2008;15:116-9.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.Adegbehingbe BO, Majekodunmi AA, Akinsola FB, Soetan EO. Pattern of refractive errors at Obafemi Awolowo university teaching hospital, Ile-Ife, Nigeria. Niger J Ophthalmol 2003;11:76-9.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.Nworah PB, Ezepue UF. Prevalence of error of refraction in Nigerian eye clinic. Orient J Med 1992;4:57-60.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.Ayanniyi AA, Folorunso FN, Adepoju FG. Refractive ocular conditions and reasons for spectacles renewal in a resource-limited economy. BMC Ophthalmol 2010;10:12.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.Bagaiya T, Pam V. Refractive errors in Kaduna, Nigeria. Niger J Surg Res 2003;5:106-9.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.Sperduto RD, Seigel D, Roberts J, Rowland M. Prevalence of myopia in the United States. Arch Ophthalmol 1983;101:405-7.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.Katz J, Tielsch JM, Sommer A. Prevalence and risk factors for refractive errors in an adult inner city population. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1997;38:334-40.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.Wu SY, Nemesure B, Leske MC. Refractive errors in a black adult population: The Barbados Eye Study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1999;40:2179-84.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.Lin LL, Shih YF, Tsai CB, Chen CJ, Lee LA, Hung PT, et al. Epidemiologic study of ocular refraction among schoolchildren in Taiwan in 1995. Optom Vis Sci 1999;76:275-81.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.Quek TP, Chua CG, Chong CS, Chong JH, Hey HW, Lee J, et al. Prevalence of refractive errors in teenage high school students in Singapore. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2004;24:47-55.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.Lam CS, Goldschmidt E, Edwards MH. Prevalence of myopia in local and international schools in Hong Kong. Optom Vis Sci 2004;81:317-22.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.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. 27
    
28.Wojciechowski R, Congdon N, Bowie H, Munoz B, Gilbert D, and West SK. Familial aggregation and prevalence of myopia in the Framingham offspring eye study. The Framingham offspring eye study group. Arch Ophthalmol 1996;114: 326-332.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.Bourne RR, Dineen BP, Ali SM, Noorul Huq DM, Johnson GJ. Prevalence of refractive error in Bangladeshi adults: Results of the national blindness and low vision survey of Bangladesh. Ophthalmology 2004;111:1150-60.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.Hyman L. Myopic and hyperopic refractive error in adults: An overview. Ophthalmic Epidemiol 2007;14:192-7.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.Jacobsen N, Jensen H, Goldschmidt E. Does the level of physical activity in university students influence development and progression of myopia? - A 2-year prospective cohort study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2008;49:1322-7.  Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.Miller D, Gurland JE,Isbey EK, Koester CJ, Meltzer DW, Puliafito CA, et al. Basic and Clinical Science Course 1992-1993 Section 3: Optics, Refraction, and Contact Lenses. San Francisco, California: American Academy of Ophthalmology;1992.p.115-215 94120.  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.Fledelius HC. Myopia profile in Copenhagen medical students 1996-98. Refractive stability over a century is suggested. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 2000;78:501-5.  Back to cited text no. 33
    
34.Adeoti CO, Egbewale BE. Anisometropia in a tropical hospital. West Afr J Med 2006;25:292-4.  Back to cited text no. 34
    
35.Townshend AM, Holmes JM, Evans LS. Depth of anisometropic amblyopia and difference in refraction. Am J Ophthalmol 1993;116:431-6.  Back to cited text no. 35
    
36.Brooks SE, Johnson D, Fischer N. Anisometropia and binocularity. Ophthalmology 1996;103:1139-43.  Back to cited text no. 36
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3], [Figure 4], [Figure 5]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4]


This article has been cited by
1 Profile of refractive error in Ekiti, south western Nigeria
Iyiade A. Ajayi,Olusola J. Omotoye,Olubunmi Omotoso-Olagoke
African Vision and Eye Health. 2018; 77(1)
[Pubmed] | [DOI]



 

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

 
  In this article
    Abstract
   Introduction
    Materials and Me...
   Results
   Discussion
   Acknowledgments
    References
    Article Figures
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed2997    
    Printed48    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded466    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 1    

Recommend this journal