Accuracy of a reported family history of myopia: Genes in myopia (GEM) study

Purpose: To determine the accuracy of proband-reported family history of myopia and the effect of proband's age, gender and education on accuracy. Methods: Three hundred and three subjects aged 11-72 years, from 98 pedigrees were examined. Vision, refraction and family history were examined. Probands with a prior diagnosis of myopia were asked to report if they were aware of any nuclear relatives with myopia. This reported family history was then directly compared with the clinical findings of family members to calculate levels of accuracy. Results: Thirteen percent of probands were unaware of their positive family history of myopia. Accuracy of proband-reported family history of myopia was 86% for mother, 89% for father and 90% for sibling. Proband age was found to affect the accuracy of family history reports, with younger (<20 years) and older (>50 years) subjects reporting with much lower levels of accuracy. Proband gender and education had no significant effect (p > 0.01). Conclusions: As 13% of probands were unaware of their positive family history, this may suggest that a higher percentage of myopia may be inherited than reported. In instances where the proband is younger (<20 yrs) or older (>50 yrs) additional family contacts may be required

Vision-related quality of life comparison for emmetropes, myopes after refractive surgery, and myopes wearing spectacles or contact lenses

To compare the vision-related quality of life among emmetropes, myopes who had refractive surgery, and myopes who wore spectacles and/or contact lenses. This cross-sectional study assessed vision-related quality of life using the Vision Quality of Life Index. Participants were age 18 years or older with a presenting visual acuity of 20/40 or better and no other ocular pathology. Responses were compared among three groups: emmetropes (spherical equivalent [SE] < 0.50 to > -0.50 diopters [D]), myopes (SE < or = -0.50 D) who wore spectacles and/or contact lenses, and myopes who had refractive surgery. The study population included 64 emmetropes, 66 myopes who wore spectacles and/or contact lenses, and 65 myopes who had refractive surgery. No significant differences were found between the refractive surgery and emmetropic groups. In contrast, the spectacle and/or contact lens group had significantly increased odds of having concerns about injuring themselves (odds ratio = 11.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.3, 57.1), difficulties coping with demands in life (odds ratio = 23.6, 95% CI 23.8, 198.1), difficulties fulfilling roles (odds ratio = 5.6, 95% CI 1.4, 22.1), and less confidence joining in everyday activities (odds ratio = 30.6, 95% CI 3.2, 292.3) compared to emmetropes. Myopia corrected with spectacles or contact lenses had a negative impact on some areas of vision-related quality of life. However, individuals with myopia who had refractive surgery enjoyed the same vision-related quality of life as those with emmetropia. The potential improvement in vision-related quality of life should be considered when recommending treatment for myopia

Evaluation of accuracy in proband-reported family history and its determinants: The genes in myopia family study

Purpose: Proband-reported family histories are widely used in epidemiological and genetic studies. The accuracy of these reports may have significant effects on the intended outcome, particularly in genetic studies. This study aims to determine the accuracy of proband-reported family history of myopia and to assess whether demographic or clinical factors are predictive of an accurate history. Methods: In 2004 to 2005, the study recruited 120 myopic probands (&#8804;&#8722;0.50 D spherical equivalent in both eyes) aged 18 to 72 years and 358 nuclear family members residing within Victoria, Australia as part of the Genes in Myopia (GEM) family study. Data collection used an examiner-administered questionnaire with an ocular examination. Proband-reported family history of myopia was evaluated for agreement with ophthalmic examination results of family members. Results: The statistical measures of accuracy used in this report were sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value. Sensitivity varied from 85 to 98%, specificity from 84 to 96%, positive predictive value from 83 to 97%, and negative predictive value from 84 to 97%. Following multivariate analysis, an evaluation of demographic and clinical factors indicated that the highest predictive accuracy was obtained from proband reporting of their children [odds ratio (OR), 0.38; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.15 to 0.94] whereas the most inaccurate reporting of a proband was when there was less-severe maternal myopia (per 0.50 D less myopic) (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.43) or for increase in total education of the proband (per 1 year increase) (OR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.42). Conclusions: Several variables influence the accuracy of obtaining a family history of myopia. A questionnaire-based approach alone will introduce some error into the study and this should be taken into account when designing and undertaking family-based epidemiological or genetic studies of myopia