Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE:
To compare visual outcomes for used glasses versus ready-made spectacles in the treatment of refractive error.
PATIENTS AND METHODS:
In this prospective, comparative case series, undilated refractive error screening examinations were conducted over a 5-week period. Patients with bilateral refractive error were treated with used glasses and ready-made spectacles powered to match their prescriptions. Snellen visual acuity was measured with no correction, best (manifest) correction, unrefined autorefraction, used glasses, and ready-made spectacles. Main outcome measurements were the mean visual improvement from uncorrected acuity and median final visual acuity after treatment with used and ready-made spectacles.
RESULTS:
One hundred forty-one patients ages 18 and older with bilateral refractive error were examined. Uncorrected visual acuity in each eye improved an average of 4.5 lines with best correction, 4.0 lines with used glasses, and 3.5 lines with ready-made spectacles, with used glasses demonstrating a statistically significant advantage over ready-made spectacles (P < .001). The median visual acuity in the better eye improved from 20/60 uncorrected to 20/25 with all types of glasses. In patients with less than 1 diopter of anisometropia and greater than 1 diopter of astigmatism in each eye (49%), the ready-made spectacles performed equally as well as the used glasses (P = .95), improving vision an average of 3.9 lines for a median final visual acuity of 20/25 in the better eye.
CONCLUSION:
Although both were effective, used glasses are better than ready-made spectacles for improving vision loss due to refractive error.
- 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.
10.2471/BLT.07.041210 Crossref Medline, Google Scholar - 2.Dandona L, Dandona R. What is the global burden of visual impairment?BMC Med. 2006; 4:6.
10.1186/1741-7015-4-6 Crossref Medline, Google Scholar - 3.du Toit R, Ramke J, Palagyi A, Brian G. Spectacles in Fiji: need, acquisition, use and willingness to pay. Clin Exp Optom. 2008; 91:538–544.
10.1111/j.1444-0938.2008.00286.x Crossref Medline, Google Scholar - 4.Ramke J, Palagyi A, du Toit R, Brian G. Using assessment of willingness to pay to improve a Cambodian spectacle service. Br J Ophthalmol. 2008; 92:170–174.
10.1136/bjo.2007.122192 Crossref Medline, Google Scholar - 5.Ramke J, du Toit R, Palagyi A, Brian G, Naduvilath T. Correction of refractive error and presbyopia in Timor-Leste. Br J Ophthalmol. 2007; 91:860–866.
10.1136/bjo.2006.110502 Crossref Medline, Google Scholar - 6.Odedra N, Wedner SH, Shigongo ZS, Nyalali K, Gilbert C. Barriers to spectacle use in Tanzanian secondary school students. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2008; 15:410–417.
10.1080/09286580802399094 Crossref Medline, Google Scholar - 7.Tahhan N, Fricke TR, Naduvilath T, Uncorrected refractive error in the northern and eastern provinces of Sri Lanka. Clin Exp Optom. 2009; 92:119–125.
10.1111/j.1444-0938.2008.00338.x Crossref Medline, Google Scholar - 8.Bourne RRA, Dineen BP, Huq DMN, Ali SM, Johnson GI. Correction of refractive error in the adult population of Bangladesh: meeting the unmet need. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2004; 45:410–417.
10.1167/iovs.03-0129 Crossref Medline, Google Scholar - 9.Maini R, Weih LA, McCarthy CA, Taylor HR. Correction of refractive error in the Victorian population: the feasibility of ‘off the shelf’ spectacles. Br J Ophthalmol. 2001; 85:1283–1286.
10.1136/bjo.85.11.1283 Crossref Medline, Google Scholar - 10.Zeng Y, Keay L, He M, A randomized, clinical trial evaluating ready-made and custom spectacles delivered via a school-based screening program in China. Ophthalmology. 2009; 116:1839–1845.
10.1016/j.ophtha.2009.04.004 Crossref Medline, Google Scholar - 11.Shane TS, Knight OR, Shi W, Schiffman JC, Alfonso ED, Lee RK. Treating uncorrected refractive error in the developing world with autorefractors and ready-made glasses. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol. 2011; 39:729–733.
10.1111/j.1442-9071.2011.02546.x Crossref Medline, Google Scholar - 12.Gunst-Figueroa Eyeglasses Cataloguing System. Global Revision Network web site 2009. Available at www.globalrevision.org. Google Scholar
- 13.Ramke J, du Toit R, Brian G. An assessment of recycled spectacles donated to a developing country. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2006; 34:671–676.
10.1111/j.1442-9071.2006.01306.x Crossref Medline, Google Scholar - 14.Farook M, Venkatramani J, Guzzard G, Cheng A, Tan D, Saw SM. Comparisons of the handheld autorefractor, table-mounted autorefractor, and subjective refraction in Singapore adults. Optom Vis Sci. 2005; 82:1066–1070.
10.1097/01.opx.0000192344.72997.7c Crossref Medline, Google Scholar - 15.Liang CL, Hung KS, Park N, Chan P, Juo SH. Comparison of measurements of refractive errors between the hand-held Retinomax and on-table autorefractors in cyclopleged and noncyclopleged children. Am J Ophthalmol. 2003; 136:1120–1128.
10.1016/S0002-9394(03)00789-X Crossref Medline, Google Scholar - 16.Zhao J, Mao J, Luo R, Li F, Pokharel GP, Ellwein LB. Accuracy of noncycloplegic autorefraction in school-age children in China. Optom Vis Sci. 2004; 81:49–55.
10.1097/00006324-200401000-00010 Crossref Medline, Google Scholar - 17.Wesemann W, Dick B. Accuracy and accommodation capability of a handheld autorefractor. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2000; 26:62–70.
10.1016/S0886-3350(99)00325-9 Crossref Medline, Google Scholar - 18.du Toit R, Ramke J, Brian G. Tolerance to prism induced by readymade spectacles: setting and using a standard. Optom Vis Sci. 2007; 84:1053–1059.
10.1097/OPX.0b013e318159aa69 Crossref Medline, Google Scholar
