ArticleTurkish journal of ophthalmology2021
Refractive and Vision Status in Down Syndrome: A Comparative Study
Article in Turkish journal of ophthalmology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prevalence and Etiology of Strabismus in Down Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis with a Focus on Ethnic Differences in the Esotropia/Exotropia Ratio.Ophthalmic epidemiology · 2025Pooled it
- The Ocular Manifestations of Individuals With Down Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of ophthalmology · 2025Review
- Retinoscopes: Past and present.World journal of methodology · 2024Article
- Visual Acuity Prediction Based on Different Refraction Types For Patients With Down Syndrome.Translational vision science & technology · 2023Article
- The Ophthalmic Manifestations of Down Syndrome.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Letter to the Editor re: "Refractive and Vision Status in Down Syndrome: A Comparative Study".Turkish journal of ophthalmology · 2022Article
- Reply to Letter to the Editor re: "Refractive and Vision Status in Down Syndrome: A Comparative Study".Turkish journal of ophthalmology · 2022Article
- Cognitive outcome measures for tracking Alzheimer's disease in Down syndrome.International review of research in developmental disabilities · 2022Article
- Nystagmus in Down Syndrome - a Retrospective Notes Review.The British and Irish orthoptic journal · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To determine the prevalence of refractive errors and visual impairment in Down syndrome (DS) patients compared to normal controls. Materials and Methods: Cycloplegic refraction was tested in 213 DS patients and 184 normal age- and gender-matched controls using autorefraction followed by retinoscopy. Data from the worse eye of each case were used in the analyses. Results: In the DS and control groups, respectively, mean age was 17.2±4.8 and 17.2±4.4 years (p=0.993) and 53.0% and 49.5% were male (p=0.473). In the DS and control groups, respectively, mean spherical equivalent (SE) was -5.13±4.47 and -4.15±3.04 diopters (D) in myopics (p=0.050) and 2.47±1.64 and 2.36±2.04 D in hyperopics (p=0.482), mean cylinder error was -2.17±1.39 and -2.05±1.57 D (p=0.451), mean J0 was -0.03±0.89 and 0.12±0.76 D (p=0.086), and mean J45 was 0.11±1.02 and -0.13±1.03 D (p=0.024). The prevalence of oblique astigmatism was higher in the DS group (20.4% vs. 6.1%) while against-the-rule astigmatism was more prevalent in the control group (84.0% vs. 71.6%) (p<0.001). The prevalence of anisometropia was not significantly different between the groups (19.4% vs. 13.8%). Visual impairment was detected in 11.7% of the DS and 0.5% of the control group (p<0.001). The prevalence of amblyopia was 36.3% and 3.8% in the DS and control groups, respectively (p<0.001). Based on the multiple model, only absolute SE inversely correlated with age and differed between males and females (all p<0.05). Conclusion: In DS patients, the prevalence rates of refractive errors, amblyopia, and visual impairment are higher than those in non-DS individuals, and emmetropization appears to be either defective or slow. Cylinder error is stable in this age range, but the rotation of astigmatism axis is different from normal samples.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.