BMJ  2004;328:348 (7 February), doi:10.1136/bmj.328.7435.348

Letter

Treatment of unilateral visual impairment on preschool vision screening

Preschool vision screening should continue, perhaps earlier

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

EDITOR—The report by Clarke et al showed that mild visual loss in preschool children benefited little by treatment and that current management of this group ought to be reviewed.¹

Their conclusion advocating "the use of relatively later screening" seems incorrect. This study and others show the benefits of treatment for greater degrees of vision loss.² Conversely, Simons and Preslan show the consequences of failure of treatment.³ To dismiss the findings of the study of Simons and Preslan as merely an inevitability of being a non-compliant group seems harsh.

Preschool screening should continue for all, perhaps even at an earlier age.² The results of the current study, however, imply that later referral and eventual expectant management of mild visual loss may be appropriate. Certainly, newer technologies to improve screening accuracy would be helpful.

As an aside, the report does not indicate whether any underlying eye disease was fortuitously diagnosed . . . [Full text of this article]

38 Cecil Street, Limerick, Republic of Ireland obriengta@yahoo.com

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    StumbleUpon    Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Articles

Enzyme potentiated desensitisation in treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis: double blind randomised controlled study

Michael J Radcliffe, George T Lewith, Richard G Turner, Philip Prescott, Martin K Church, and Stephen T Holgate
BMJ 2003 327: 251-254. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Amblyopia treatment outcomes after screening before or at age 3 years: follow up from randomised trial

C Williams, K Northstone, R A Harrad, J M Sparrow, I Harvey, and ALSPAC Study Team
BMJ 2002 324: 1549. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Online poll

Find out more >>