May 2006
Volume 47, Issue 13
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   May 2006
Population–Based Assessment of Refractive Error in a Brazilian Random Sample
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • S.A. Schellini
    Ophthalmology, Faculdade, Botucatu, Brazil
  • C.R. Padovani, Sr.
    Biostatistics, Faculdade de Medicina de Botucatu, Botucatu, Brazil
  • C.R. P. Padovani, Sr.
    Ophthalmology, Faculdade de Medician de Botucatu, Botucatu, Brazil
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  S.A. Schellini, None; C.R. Padovani, None; C.R.P. Padovani, None.
  • Footnotes
    Support  Fundaçào de Amparo a Pesquisa de Sao Paulo
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science May 2006, Vol.47, 1150. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      S.A. Schellini, C.R. Padovani, Sr., C.R. P. Padovani, Sr.; Population–Based Assessment of Refractive Error in a Brazilian Random Sample . Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2006;47(13):1150.

      Download citation file:

      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

  • Supplements

Purpose: : To assess the prevalence, distribution, and demographic associations of refractive error in a region of Sao Paulo State – Brazil, through a population–based study.

Methods: : A total of 3354 citizens (6690 eyes) representing a cross–section of the population of two cities located in Sao Paulo State – Brazil were sampled in clusters using a stratified, random, cluster sampling strategy. The sample was selected by a door–to–door household survey in the selected clusters and was invited to participate. All participants were submitted to ophthalmologic exam (visual acuity with and without correction, biomicroscopy, fundoscopy, tonometry, and automated and objective/subjective refraction). Cycloplegic refraction was assessed for participants ≤ 40 years of age and objective and subjective refraction for those aged ≥ 40 years. Myopia was defined as worse than –0.50 D, hyperopia as worse than +0.75 D and astigmatism (simple, hyperopic or myopic astigmatism) worse than 0.50 D. High myopia more than 6.00 D and high hyperopia more than 5 D. Prevalence was evaluated for eyes separately and both together and the data was submitted to statistical analysis.

Results: : The age– and gender–standardized prevalence based on cycloplegic refraction showed no refractive error in 33.9% of the evaluated eyes. Hyperopia was detected in 15.2% and high hyperopia in 0.7%. Myopia in 3.6% and high myopia in 0.1%. Hyperopic astigmatism was present in 21.4%, myopic astigmatism in 9.1% and simple astigmatism in 18.8%. Anisometropia of 1 D or more was presented in 1.8% and amblyopia was presented in 0.8% of the eyes. Prevalence of refractive errors differed significantly by age (P < 0.001) but was similar in both sexes. The refractive error correction resulted in normal visual acuity in 60.6% of the eyes, but 3.2% remained with low vision and 2.3% were blind.

Conclusions: : The refractive status of the population is provided with documented prevalence of myopia, hyperopia, astigmatism and anisometropia by age and gender, identifying the results obtained when the refractive error correction was done. The data on the distribution and associations of refractive error can be useful for the planning of refractive eye–care services.

Keywords: clinical (human) or epidemiologic studies: prevalence/incidence • refraction • refractive error development 

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.