Screening for impaired visual acuity in older adults: Updated evidence report and systematic review for the US preventive services task force

Roger Chou, Tracy Dana, Christina Bougatsos, Sara Grusing, Ian Blazina

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

17 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Importance Impaired visual acuity is common among older adults and can adversely affect function and quality of life. Objective To update a 2009 systematic review on screening for impaired visual acuity among older adults for the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Data Sources Ovid Medline (2008 to January 2016), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Study Selection Randomized clinical trials of screening; diagnostic accuracy studies of screening tests in primary care settings; and randomized clinical trials of treatment vs placebo or no treatment for uncorrected refractive errors, cataracts, and dry (atrophic) or wet (exudative) age-related macular degeneration (AMD). Studies of screening and diagnostic accuracy were limited to asymptomatic adults 65 years or older; studies of treatment included asymptomatic adults of any age. Data Extraction and Synthesis One investigator abstracted data, a second checked data for accuracy, and 2 investigators independently assessed study quality using predefined criteria. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to estimate the relative and absolute benefits of vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors (anti-VEGF) for wet AMD. Main Outcomes and Measures Visual acuity, vision-related function, functional capacity, harms, and diagnostic accuracy. RESULTS Three trials (n = 4728) from the 2009 USPSTF review found that screening for impaired visual acuity was not associated with improved visual or clinical outcomes. In 1 good-quality trial (n = 3346), universal screening identified 27% of persons with impaired visual acuity and correctable impairment vs 3.1% with targeted screening, but there was no difference in the likelihood of visual acuity worse than 20/60 after 3 to 5 years (37% vs 35%; relative risk [RR], 1.07; 95% CI, 0.84-1.36). The 2009 review found that effective treatments are available for uncorrected refractive errors and cataracts. Ten-year trial results of dry AMD found an antioxidant/zinc combination was associated with decreased risk of visual acuity loss (46% vs 54%; odds ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.57-0.88). An updated meta-analysis found anti-VEGF for wet AMD was associated with greater likelihood of having vision 20/200 or better vs sham injection (4 trials; RR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.30-1.66; I2 = 42%; absolute risk difference, 24%; 95% CI, 12%-37% after 1 year). New evidence on the diagnostic accuracy of visual acuity screening tests was limited and consistent with previous findings that screening questions or a visual acuity test was associated with suboptimal accuracy. Conclusions and Relevance Screening can identify persons with impaired visual acuity, and effective treatments are available for common causes of impaired visual acuity, such as uncorrected refractive error, cataracts, and dry or wet AMD. However, direct evidence found no significant difference between vision screening in older adults in primary care settings vs no screening for improving visual acuity or other clinical outcomes.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)915-933
Number of pages19
JournalJAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association
Volume315
Issue number9
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 1 2016

Fingerprint

Advisory Committees
Visual Acuity
Macular Degeneration
Refractive Errors
Cataract
Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A
Meta-Analysis
Primary Health Care
Randomized Controlled Trials
Vision Screening
Research Personnel
Therapeutics
Information Storage and Retrieval
Zinc
Antioxidants
Odds Ratio
Placebos
Quality of Life
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Databases

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Screening for impaired visual acuity in older adults : Updated evidence report and systematic review for the US preventive services task force. / Chou, Roger; Dana, Tracy; Bougatsos, Christina; Grusing, Sara; Blazina, Ian.

In: JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 315, No. 9, 01.03.2016, p. 915-933.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{b99f6cb0e7d1467d84a808ae3a54be9c,
title = "Screening for impaired visual acuity in older adults: Updated evidence report and systematic review for the US preventive services task force",
abstract = "Importance Impaired visual acuity is common among older adults and can adversely affect function and quality of life. Objective To update a 2009 systematic review on screening for impaired visual acuity among older adults for the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Data Sources Ovid Medline (2008 to January 2016), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Study Selection Randomized clinical trials of screening; diagnostic accuracy studies of screening tests in primary care settings; and randomized clinical trials of treatment vs placebo or no treatment for uncorrected refractive errors, cataracts, and dry (atrophic) or wet (exudative) age-related macular degeneration (AMD). Studies of screening and diagnostic accuracy were limited to asymptomatic adults 65 years or older; studies of treatment included asymptomatic adults of any age. Data Extraction and Synthesis One investigator abstracted data, a second checked data for accuracy, and 2 investigators independently assessed study quality using predefined criteria. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to estimate the relative and absolute benefits of vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors (anti-VEGF) for wet AMD. Main Outcomes and Measures Visual acuity, vision-related function, functional capacity, harms, and diagnostic accuracy. RESULTS Three trials (n = 4728) from the 2009 USPSTF review found that screening for impaired visual acuity was not associated with improved visual or clinical outcomes. In 1 good-quality trial (n = 3346), universal screening identified 27{\%} of persons with impaired visual acuity and correctable impairment vs 3.1{\%} with targeted screening, but there was no difference in the likelihood of visual acuity worse than 20/60 after 3 to 5 years (37{\%} vs 35{\%}; relative risk [RR], 1.07; 95{\%} CI, 0.84-1.36). The 2009 review found that effective treatments are available for uncorrected refractive errors and cataracts. Ten-year trial results of dry AMD found an antioxidant/zinc combination was associated with decreased risk of visual acuity loss (46{\%} vs 54{\%}; odds ratio, 0.71; 95{\%} CI, 0.57-0.88). An updated meta-analysis found anti-VEGF for wet AMD was associated with greater likelihood of having vision 20/200 or better vs sham injection (4 trials; RR, 1.47; 95{\%} CI, 1.30-1.66; I2 = 42{\%}; absolute risk difference, 24{\%}; 95{\%} CI, 12{\%}-37{\%} after 1 year). New evidence on the diagnostic accuracy of visual acuity screening tests was limited and consistent with previous findings that screening questions or a visual acuity test was associated with suboptimal accuracy. Conclusions and Relevance Screening can identify persons with impaired visual acuity, and effective treatments are available for common causes of impaired visual acuity, such as uncorrected refractive error, cataracts, and dry or wet AMD. However, direct evidence found no significant difference between vision screening in older adults in primary care settings vs no screening for improving visual acuity or other clinical outcomes.",
author = "Roger Chou and Tracy Dana and Christina Bougatsos and Sara Grusing and Ian Blazina",
year = "2016",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1001/jama.2016.0783",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "315",
pages = "915--933",
journal = "JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association",
issn = "0002-9955",
publisher = "American Medical Association",
number = "9",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Screening for impaired visual acuity in older adults

T2 - Updated evidence report and systematic review for the US preventive services task force

AU - Chou, Roger

AU - Dana, Tracy

AU - Bougatsos, Christina

AU - Grusing, Sara

AU - Blazina, Ian

PY - 2016/3/1

Y1 - 2016/3/1

N2 - Importance Impaired visual acuity is common among older adults and can adversely affect function and quality of life. Objective To update a 2009 systematic review on screening for impaired visual acuity among older adults for the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Data Sources Ovid Medline (2008 to January 2016), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Study Selection Randomized clinical trials of screening; diagnostic accuracy studies of screening tests in primary care settings; and randomized clinical trials of treatment vs placebo or no treatment for uncorrected refractive errors, cataracts, and dry (atrophic) or wet (exudative) age-related macular degeneration (AMD). Studies of screening and diagnostic accuracy were limited to asymptomatic adults 65 years or older; studies of treatment included asymptomatic adults of any age. Data Extraction and Synthesis One investigator abstracted data, a second checked data for accuracy, and 2 investigators independently assessed study quality using predefined criteria. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to estimate the relative and absolute benefits of vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors (anti-VEGF) for wet AMD. Main Outcomes and Measures Visual acuity, vision-related function, functional capacity, harms, and diagnostic accuracy. RESULTS Three trials (n = 4728) from the 2009 USPSTF review found that screening for impaired visual acuity was not associated with improved visual or clinical outcomes. In 1 good-quality trial (n = 3346), universal screening identified 27% of persons with impaired visual acuity and correctable impairment vs 3.1% with targeted screening, but there was no difference in the likelihood of visual acuity worse than 20/60 after 3 to 5 years (37% vs 35%; relative risk [RR], 1.07; 95% CI, 0.84-1.36). The 2009 review found that effective treatments are available for uncorrected refractive errors and cataracts. Ten-year trial results of dry AMD found an antioxidant/zinc combination was associated with decreased risk of visual acuity loss (46% vs 54%; odds ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.57-0.88). An updated meta-analysis found anti-VEGF for wet AMD was associated with greater likelihood of having vision 20/200 or better vs sham injection (4 trials; RR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.30-1.66; I2 = 42%; absolute risk difference, 24%; 95% CI, 12%-37% after 1 year). New evidence on the diagnostic accuracy of visual acuity screening tests was limited and consistent with previous findings that screening questions or a visual acuity test was associated with suboptimal accuracy. Conclusions and Relevance Screening can identify persons with impaired visual acuity, and effective treatments are available for common causes of impaired visual acuity, such as uncorrected refractive error, cataracts, and dry or wet AMD. However, direct evidence found no significant difference between vision screening in older adults in primary care settings vs no screening for improving visual acuity or other clinical outcomes.

AB - Importance Impaired visual acuity is common among older adults and can adversely affect function and quality of life. Objective To update a 2009 systematic review on screening for impaired visual acuity among older adults for the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Data Sources Ovid Medline (2008 to January 2016), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Study Selection Randomized clinical trials of screening; diagnostic accuracy studies of screening tests in primary care settings; and randomized clinical trials of treatment vs placebo or no treatment for uncorrected refractive errors, cataracts, and dry (atrophic) or wet (exudative) age-related macular degeneration (AMD). Studies of screening and diagnostic accuracy were limited to asymptomatic adults 65 years or older; studies of treatment included asymptomatic adults of any age. Data Extraction and Synthesis One investigator abstracted data, a second checked data for accuracy, and 2 investigators independently assessed study quality using predefined criteria. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to estimate the relative and absolute benefits of vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors (anti-VEGF) for wet AMD. Main Outcomes and Measures Visual acuity, vision-related function, functional capacity, harms, and diagnostic accuracy. RESULTS Three trials (n = 4728) from the 2009 USPSTF review found that screening for impaired visual acuity was not associated with improved visual or clinical outcomes. In 1 good-quality trial (n = 3346), universal screening identified 27% of persons with impaired visual acuity and correctable impairment vs 3.1% with targeted screening, but there was no difference in the likelihood of visual acuity worse than 20/60 after 3 to 5 years (37% vs 35%; relative risk [RR], 1.07; 95% CI, 0.84-1.36). The 2009 review found that effective treatments are available for uncorrected refractive errors and cataracts. Ten-year trial results of dry AMD found an antioxidant/zinc combination was associated with decreased risk of visual acuity loss (46% vs 54%; odds ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.57-0.88). An updated meta-analysis found anti-VEGF for wet AMD was associated with greater likelihood of having vision 20/200 or better vs sham injection (4 trials; RR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.30-1.66; I2 = 42%; absolute risk difference, 24%; 95% CI, 12%-37% after 1 year). New evidence on the diagnostic accuracy of visual acuity screening tests was limited and consistent with previous findings that screening questions or a visual acuity test was associated with suboptimal accuracy. Conclusions and Relevance Screening can identify persons with impaired visual acuity, and effective treatments are available for common causes of impaired visual acuity, such as uncorrected refractive error, cataracts, and dry or wet AMD. However, direct evidence found no significant difference between vision screening in older adults in primary care settings vs no screening for improving visual acuity or other clinical outcomes.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84959275500&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84959275500&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1001/jama.2016.0783

DO - 10.1001/jama.2016.0783

M3 - Article

C2 - 26934261

AN - SCOPUS:84959275500

VL - 315

SP - 915

EP - 933

JO - JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association

JF - JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association

SN - 0002-9955

IS - 9

ER -