Comparison between Nonmydriatic Spectral Domain Optical Coherence Tomography and Conventional Ophthalmologic Examination in Detecting Adult Macular Pathology.

OBJECTIVE: To compare nonmydriatic spectral domain optical coherence tomography (NMOCT) to comprehensive ophthalmologic evaluation (COE) in detecting adult macular abnormalities. METHODS: This is a single-reader observational pilot study of adults older than 50 years with no known ophthalmologic problems to assess the correlation between NMOCT and COE in detecting macular abnormalities classified as epiretinal, intraretinal, subretinal, or a combination thereof. Subjects underwent NMOCT of the macula followed by COE which included a dilated fundus examination and ancillary tests as needed. RESULTS: A total of 771 eyes of 406 patients were included. Cohen's kappa coefficient of agreement between NMOCT and COE for detecting any abnormality was high (0.90, p < 0.0001), with NMOCT having an overall sensitivity of 82.65% and specificity of 98.97%. Sensitivities and specificities of NMOCT in detecting each category of macular abnormalities were as follows: epiretinal (86.36%, 99.73%), intraretinal (80.00%, 99.58%), and subretinal (88.89%, 99.73%), respectively. CONCLUSION: NMOCT is a promising tool for detecting adult macular abnormalities.

Why are there defaulters in eye health projects?

PURPOSE: To identify barriers to attendance for eye examination of schoolchildren. METHODS: Cross-sectional study. Students in grades 1-4 in elementary school in Guarulhos (Brazil) were screened and referred for ophthalmic examination in 2006. Facilities offered in this project were: examination arranged during weekends, free transportation, spectacle donation and two different opportunities for exam. A questionnaire was applied, by interview, to a sample consisted of students' parents attended in a community project who missed the first call and attended the recall, to identify the reasons for non-attendance. RESULTS: The sample consisted of 767 parents or guardians, corresponding to an equal number of schoolchildren. Personal characteristics of the students: 49.2 percent male and 50.8 percent female, 60.2 percent of them had never received previous ophthalmologic evaluation. Reported reasons for no-show to the project: parents had not received appropriate orientation (35.6 percent), loss of working day (20.6 percent), illness (12.4 percent), had another appointment (10.0 percent). The need for eyeglasses was higher in the recall. CONCLUSIONS: A significant number of parents did not take their children for ophthalmological exams, even when a second opportunity was offered in projects with transportation facilities, free exams performed during weekends and spectacle donation. The main causes of absenteeism were lack of awareness and work. For 87.1 percent of the absenteeism cases, the difficulties could be overcome via improved structuring of the first call. A recall increases attendance coverage of target population by only 15.2 percent (59.3 to 74.5 percent). Notably, the eye exam campaign was the first exam for most of the absent students.