RESUMEN
PURPOSE: To analyze referral rates, patient demographics, referral indications, and the impact of socioeconomic factors on ocular health from the University of California Irvine (UCI) Eye Mobile for Children, particularly during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed on de-identified records of children examined on the UCI Eye Mobile. GraphPad Prism 10.0.0 and Python software were used for statistical analyses. RESULTS: In the academic years from 2018 to 2022, 3,619 children received comprehensive eye examinations on the UCI Eye Mobile. Among them, 76 were referred to a pediatric ophthalmologist. The majority of these children were Hispanic (72.6%, 54 of 74), followed by Asian (10.9%, 8 of 74). A significant proportion (82.9%, 63 of 76) attended school districts with median incomes below that of Orange County. Statistically significant differences were found in age (P = .001; pre-COVID: 3.98 ± 1.08 years vs COVID: 5.75 ± 2.92 years) and gender (P = .023; pre-COVID female: 31 of 41 vs COVID female: 15 of 32) between the pre-COVID and COVID years. Additionally, there were significant differences in the proportion of children with hyperopia with astigmatism between the pre-COVID and COVID years (P = .044; pre-COVID: 23 of 40 vs COVID: 12 of 35). The most common indications for ophthalmologist referrals were for strabismus evaluation/treatment (28.9%, 22 of 76), followed by abnormal cup-to-disc ratio (21.1%, 16 of 76). CONCLUSIONS: The study highlights the pivotal role of the UCI Eye Mobile for children in identifying ocular conditions needing referrals to subspecialty care. The majority of children needing these referrals attended schools in lower economic communities. Additionally, the COVID-19 pandemic appears to have influenced the demographic and clinical characteristics. [J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus. 20XX:X(X):XXX-XXX.].
RESUMEN
SIGNIFICANCE: This pilot randomized trial, the first to evaluate a specific base-in relieving prism treatment strategy for childhood intermittent exotropia, did not support proceeding to a full-scale clinical trial. Defining and measuring prism adaptation in children with intermittent exotropia are challenging and need further study. PURPOSE: This study aimed to determine whether to proceed to a full-scale trial of relieving base-in prism spectacles versus refractive correction alone for children with intermittent exotropia. METHODS: Children 3 years old to those younger than 13 years with distance intermittent exotropia control score of ≥2 points on the Intermittent Exotropia Office Control Scale (Strabismus 2006;14:147-150; 0 [phoria] to 5 [constant]), ≥1 episode of spontaneous exotropia, and 16 to 35∆ by prism-and-alternate-cover test, who did not fully prism adapt on a 30-minute in-office prism-adaptation test were randomized to base-in relieving prism (40% of the larger of distance and near exodeviations) or nonprism spectacles for 8 weeks. A priori criteria to conduct a full-scale trial were defined for the adjusted treatment group difference in mean distance control: "proceed" (≥0.75 points favoring prism), "uncertain" (>0 to <0.75 points favoring prism), or "do not proceed" (≥0 points favoring nonprism). RESULTS: Fifty-seven children (mean age, 6.6 ± 2.2 years; mean baseline distance control, 3.5 points) received prism (n = 28) or nonprism (n = 29) spectacles. At 8 weeks, mean control values were 3.6 and 3.3 points in prism (n = 25) and nonprism (n = 25) groups, respectively, with an adjusted difference of 0.3 points (95% confidence interval, -0.5 to 1.1 points) favoring nonprism (meeting our a priori "do not proceed" criterion). CONCLUSIONS: Base-in prism spectacles, equal to 40% of the larger of the exodeviations at distance or near, worn for 8 weeks by 3- to 12-year-old children with intermittent exotropia did not yield better distance control than refractive correction alone, with the confidence interval indicating that a favorable effect of 0.75 points or larger is unlikely. There was insufficient evidence to warrant a full-scale randomized trial.
