Miopia pada kebiasaannya didefinisi sebagai sfera setara ≥ -0.50 D dalam banyak kajian yang dilaporkan. Namun demikian tidak banyak laporan berkaitan kesensitifan dan kekhususan definisi miopia yang dipilih apabila penyelidik melaporkan prevalen dan taburan miopia dalam populasi yang dikaji. Objektif kajian ini adalah membezakan kesensitifan and kekhususan setiap definisi miopia yang dipilih, iaitu -0.50 D, -0.75 D dan -1.00 D dan untuk mengenal pasti kebolehan definisi tersebut meramalkan ralat refraksi miopia pada akuiti penglihatan kurang daripada log MAR 0.3 (6/12) dalam kalangan pelajar Melayu. Seramai 866 orang pelajar Melayu berumur antara 7-10 tahun mengambil bahagian dalam penyelidikan ini. Akuiti penglihatan diukur menggunakan carta log MAR dan ralat refraksi diukur menggunakan retinoskopi tanpa sikloplegia. Keputusan kami menunjukkan kesensitifan dan kekhususan definisi miopia yang dipilih iaitu ≥ -0.50 D adalah 54.5% dan 97.8%, untuk definisi miopia ≥ - 0.75 D adalah 71.1% and 97.5% dan untuk definisi miopia ≥ -1.00 D adalah 83.3% dan 97.2%. Luas lengkok ROC untuk setiap definisi miopia -0.50 D, -0.75 D dan -1.00 D ialah 0.676, 0.839 and 0.957. Kesimpulannya, kajian ini menunjukkan definisi optimum miopia untuk pelajar sekolah Melayu berumur antara 7-10 tahun ialah ≥ -1.00 D, dengan menggunakan kaedah retinoskopi tanpa sikloplegia. Definisi ini boleh mengenal pasti 95.7% pelajar mempunyai akuiti penglihatan kurang daripada log MAR 0.3 dan ia mempunyai gabungan kesensitifan (83.9%) dan kekhususan (95.7%) terbaik.
The first aim of this study was to determine the refractive error and visual acuity of Chinese elderly age 60 and above in Selangor and Johor, Malaysia. The second aim was to determine the percentage of elderly with vision impairment. Participants of this study were from the on-going population-based longitudinal study on neuroprotective model for healthy longevity (TUA) among Malaysian older adults using multistage random sampling. A total of 259 Chinese elderly aged 60 and above from state of Selangor and Johor agreed to participate. Refractive error was determined using autorefractometer Retinomax K-plus followed by subjective refraction. Best corrected visual acuity (VA) was measured using logMAR chart. Analysis was performed on data of 202 participants and the remaining 57 were excluded. Overall percentage of refractive error was higher for hyperopia (54%) compared to myopia (23.2%). High percentage of astigmatism was noted for all age groups (> 50%). Both gender showed similar distribution of refractive status. Mean overall VA was 0.24 ± 0.17 logMAR (≅ 6/9-) and mean VA declined with age. Overall, the percentage of elderly having at least mild vision impairment (> 0.3 logMAR or 6/12) was higher (62.9%) compared to normal vision (≤ 0.3 logMAR). However, percentage of vision impairment (VI) was highest in the mild category compared to others and only one participant had severe VI. This study found a high percentage of Chinese elderly with refractive error. The most common type of refractive error was hyperopia. A high proportion of them had mild vision impairment followed by moderate VI even with best correction. Vision impairment could affect daily life functioning and this effect can be further explored in the future.
This study was conducted to determine the score of self-reported visual function index (VF-14) and its correlation with
best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) in the elderly population. Participants were elderly aged 60 years and above recruited
from the on-going population-based longitudinal study on neuroprotective model for healthy longevity (TUA). Visual
acuity was measured using logMAR chart. A self-reported visual function assessment was measured using modified
Bahasa Malaysia Visual Functioning Index (VF-14). A total of 482 (93.05%) from 518 subjects participated in this study.
Mean age was 69.18 ± 5.67 years old and mean best corrected VA was 0.21 ± 0.17 logMAR. Mean VF-14 score was 89.65
± 13.19. Female had lower mean score of self-reported visual function scores compared to male (meanfemale89.21 ± 12.76,
meanmale90.11 ± 13.65) but it was not statistically significant (z = -1.09,p = 0.277). There was a moderate but significant
correlation between VF-14 score and best corrected VA (r = -0.412, p < 0.01). In conclusion, the best corrected visual
acuity alone was not able to become as an indicator to describe changes in VF14 score. This study showed that it only
contributes 17.2% to changes in VF14 score. The combination of many other factors such as socio-demographic factors
(race, educational status, and health problems), contrast sensitivity and stereopsis should be taken into account when
assessing visual function as measured by VF14.