Spectacle non-tolerance in clinical practice - a systematic review with meta-analysis.


Journal

Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists)
ISSN: 1475-1313
Titre abrégé: Ophthalmic Physiol Opt
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8208839

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
05 2021
Historique:
received: 29 09 2020
accepted: 09 12 2020
pubmed: 23 3 2021
medline: 30 11 2021
entrez: 22 3 2021
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Spectacle non-tolerance or adverse events to spectacle wear are serious concerns for both patients and practitioners. Non-tolerance may contribute to a negative impact on the practitioner's ability and practice. Therefore, a detailed understanding of frequency and causes of spectacle non-tolerance in clinical ophthalmic practice is essential. This review aimed to determine the prevalence and causes of non-tolerance to spectacles prescribed and dispensed in clinical practice. The current systematic review included quantitative studies published in the English language that reported spectacle non-tolerance in clinical practice. A comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus and the Web of Science database for studies published until 13 July 2020. An adapted version of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) modified for cross-sectional studies was used to assess the quality of each included study. Five investigations with 205,478 study participants were included in the review. The prevalence of spectacle non-tolerance from individual studies was pooled using MetaXL software. The pooled prevalence of spectacle non-tolerance was 2.1% (95% CI: 1.6-2.7) ranging from 1.6% to 3.0%. The papers were also reviewed to identify the potential causes of non-tolerances. Nearly half reported that non-tolerance (47.4%) was due to an error in refraction. Other causes identified were errors related to communication (16.3%), dispensing (13.5%), non-adaptation (9.7%), data entry (8.7%), binocular vision (7.4%) and ocular pathology (6.4%). This review improves our understanding of spectacle non-tolerance in clinical practice. This is important because non-tolerance may lead to spectacle wear discontinuation, which may deprive patients of optimal vision. Increased non-tolerance in clinical practice may affect a clinician's reputation and incur additional costs associated with reassessments and replacements. Spectacle non-tolerance occurred due to a multitude of factors related to optical dispensing and wearer adaptation. Therefore, there is a need for vigilance while prescribing spectacles. The limited evidence highlights the need for more studies, especially in limited-resource settings, to improve the quality of refractive error services.

Identifiants

pubmed: 33751648
doi: 10.1111/opo.12796
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Meta-Analysis Systematic Review

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

610-622

Informations de copyright

© 2021 The Authors Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics © 2021 The College of Optometrists.

Références

Thompson CJS . The Origin and development of spectacles. Clin Exp Optom 1937; 20: 82-91.
Cardell JDM . A pair of spectacles. Br Med J 1935; 2: 26-29.
Rubin ML . Spectacles: Past, present, and future. Surv Ophthalmol 1986; 30: 321-327.
Camuffo A . Transforming industrial districts: Large firms and small business networks in the Italian eyewear industry. Ind Innov 2003; 10: 377-401.
Gupta V , Saxena R , Vashist P et al. Spectacle coverage among urban schoolchildren with refractive error provided subsidized spectacles in North India. Optom Vis Sci 2019; 96: 301-308.
Veasey CA . The dissatisfied refraction patient. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc 1946; 44: 281-295.
Ryan E . The dissatisfied ophthalmic patient. Aust J Ophthalmol 1974; 2: 86-88.
Belmont O . Spectacle problems and medical problems that alter the need for glasses. Med Clin North Am 1969; 53: 1131-1144.
Ball G . Non-tolerance to optical prescriptions. In: Symptoms in Eye Examination, ( Ball G , ed.), Butterworths: London, 1982; pp. 37-47.
Freeman CE & Evans BJW . Investigation of the causes of non-tolerance to optometric prescriptions for spectacles. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2010; 30: 1-11.
Howell-Duffy C , Umar G , Ruparelia N & Elliott DB . What adjustments, if any, do UK optometrists make to the subjective refraction result prior to prescribing? Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2010; 30: 225-339.
Hrynchak P . Prescribing spectacles: reasons for failure of spectacle lens acceptance. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2006; 26: 111-115.
Arumugam V , Singh S & Ramani KK . Reasons for spectacle reassessment in a tertiary eye care centre over a period of six years. Clin Exp Optom 2018; 101: 237-242.
Riffenburgh RS , Wood TR & Wu ML . Why patients return after refraction. Am J Ophthalmol 1983; 96: 690-691.
Cockburn DM . Why patients complain about their new spectacles. Clin Exp Optom 1987; 70: 91-95.
Kandel H , Khadka J , Goggin M & Pesudovs K . Impact of refractive error on quality of life: a qualitative study. Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2017; 45: 677-688.
Moher D , Liberati A , Tetzlaff J et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med 2009; 151: 264-269.
Wells GA , Shea B , O’Connell D et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analysis, OHRI: Ottawa, Canda, 2000.
Herzog R , Álvarez-Pasquin MJ , Díaz C et al. Are healthcare workers intentions to vaccinate related to their knowledge, beliefs and attitudes? A systematic review. BMC Public Health 2013; 13: 154.
Barendregt JJ & Doi SA . MetaXL User Guide. Available from: www.epigear.com (Accessed 21/07/2020).
Barendregt JJ , Doi SA , Lee YY , Norman RE & Vos T . Meta-analysis of prevalence. J Epidemiol Community Health 2013; 67: 974-978.
Higgins JPT , Thompson SG , Deeks JJ & Altman DG . Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. Br Med J 2003; 327: 557-560.
Brooks C & Borish I . Segmented Multifocal Lenses. Progressive Addition Lenses. In: Systems for Ophthalmic Dispensing ( Brooks C & Borish I , eds), 3rd edn. Butterworth-Heinemann: St. Louis, 2007; pp. 431-490.
Lord SR , Dayhew J & Howland A . Multifocal glasses impair edge-contrast sensitivity and depth perception and increase the risk of falls in older people. J Am Geriatr Soc 2002; 50: 1760-1766.
Lord SR , Smith ST & Menant JC . Vision and falls in older people: Risk factors and intervention strategies. Clin Geriatr Med 2010; 26: 569-581.
Black AA , Kimlin JA & Wood JM . Stepping accuracy and visuomotor control among older adults: Effect of target contrast and refractive blur. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2014; 34: 470-478.
Johnson L , Buckley JG , Scally AJ & Elliott DB . Multifocal spectacles increase variability in toe clearance and risk of tripping in the elderly. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2007; 48: 1466-1471.
Johnson L , Buckley JG , Harley C & Elliott DB . Use of single-vision eyeglasses improves stepping precision and safety when elderly habitual multifocal wearers negotiate a raised surface. J Am Geriatr Soc 2008; 56: 178-180.
Timmis MA , Johnson L , Elliott DB & Buckley JG . Use of single-vision distance spectacles improves landing control during step descent in well-adapted multifocal lens-wearers. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2010; 51: 3903-3908.
Atchison DA , Schmid KL , Edwards KP , Muller SM & Robotham J . The effect of under and over refractive correction on visual performance and spectacle lens acceptance. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2001; 21: 255-261.
Miller AD , Kris MJ & Griffiths AC . Effect of small focal errors on vision. Optom Vis Sci 1997; 74: 521-526.
Ramke J , du Toit R , Palagyi A , Williams C & Brian G . Public sector refraction and spectacle dispensing in low-resource countries of the Western Pacific. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol 2008; 36: 339-347.
Light HL & Rosenthal J . Pilot study of quality and standards in filling spectacle prescriptions. Public Health Rep 1965; 80: 401-404.
Mohan K & Sharma A . How often are spectacle lenses not dispensed as prescribed? Indian J Ophthalmol 2012; 60: 553-555.
Ilhan N , Dogan H , Ilhan O et al. Compatibility of spectacles with their prescriptions in central Anatolia. Semin Ophthalmol 2015; 30: 29-35.
Leinonen J , Laakkonen E & Laatikainen L . Repeatability (test-retest variability) of refractive error measurement in clinical settings. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 2006; 84: 532-536.
Bannon RE & Triller W . Aniseikonia-A clinical report covering a ten year period. Clin Exp Optom 1944; 27: 296-309.
Fannin TE & Grosvenor T . Anisometropia and Aniseikonia. In: Clinical Optics ( Fannin TE & Grosvenor T , eds), 1st edn. Butterworth: Stoneham, MA, 1987; pp. 321-358.
South J , Gao T , Collins A et al. Aniseikonia and anisometropia: implications for suppression and amblyopia. Clin Exp Optom 2019; 102: 556-565.
Achiron LR , Witkin N , Primo S & Broocker G . Contemporary management of aniseikonia. Surv Ophthalmol 1997; 41: 321-330.
Hrynchak PK , Mittelstaedt AM , Harris J , Machan CM & Irving EL . Modifications made to the refractive result when prescribing spectacles. Optom Vis Sci 2012; 89: 155-160.
Howell-Duffy C , Scally AJ & Elliott DB . Spectacle prescribing II: practitioner experience is linked to the likelihood of suggesting a partial prescription. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2011; 31: 155-167.
Howell-Duffy C , Hrynchak PK , Irving EL , Mouat GSV & Elliott DB . Evaluation of the clinical maxim: “If It Ainʼt Broke, Donʼt Fix It”. Optom Vis Sci 2012; 89: 105-111.
Rubin G , George A , Chinn DJ & Richardson C . Errors in general practice: Development of an error classification and pilot study of a method for detecting errors. Qual Saf Heal Care 2003; 12: 443-447.
Steele CF , Rubin G & Fraser S . Error classification in community optometric practice - a pilot project. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2006; 26: 106-110.
Roumeliotis N , Sniderman J , Adams-Webber T et al. Effect of electronic prescribing strategies on medication error and harm in sospital: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Gen Intern Med 2019; 34: 2210-2223.
Ntodie M , Danquah L , Kandel H & Abokyi S . Toward eliminating blindness due to uncorrected refractive errors: Assessment of refractive services in the northern and central regions of Ghana. Clin Exp Optom 2014; 97: 511-515.
Kandel H , Murthy G & Bascaran C . Human resources for refraction services in Central Nepal. Clin Exp Optom 2015; 98: 335-341.

Auteurs

Jeewanand Bist (J)

Tilganga Institute of Ophthalmology, Gausala, Nepal.

Dinesh Kaphle (D)

School of Optometry and Vision Science, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.

Sanjay Marasini (S)

New Zealand National Eye Centre, Department of Ophthalmology, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.

Himal Kandel (H)

Save Sight Institute, Discipline of Clinical Ophthalmology and Eye Health, Sydney Medical School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH