Research Opportunities

Purpose:

This study is designed to find out if watching shows wearing the Luminopia headset (1 hour per day 6 days per week) or playing games using the Vivid Vision headset (25 minutes per day, 6 days per week) improves vision better than glasses alone.

Inclusion/Exclusion:

• Unilateral amblyopia (20/40-20/200) (with anisometropia and/or strabismus of ≤5pd),
• Stable in glasses (if needed), prior amblyopia therapy allowed (≤2 weeks dichoptic such as Luminopia)

Age Range:

Age 8-12 years

Location:

College of Optometry, Fry Hall

Contact Information:

Dr. Marjean Kulp
614-688-3336

Purpose:

This study is designed to find out if watching shows wearing the Luminopia headset (1 hour per day 6 days per week) improves vision just as well as treating amblyopia with patching (2 hours per day 7 days per week).

Inclusion/Exclusion:

• Unilateral amblyopia (20/40-20/200) (with anisometropia and/or strabismus of ≤5pd),
• Stable in glasses (if needed), prior amblyopia therapy allowed (≤2 weeks dichoptic)

Age Range:

Age 4-7 years

Location:

College of Optometry, Fry Hall

Contact Information:

Dr. Marjean Kulp
614-688-3336

Purpose

Evaluate if 4 months of home-based, Vivid Vision virtual-reality game therapy (25 min/day, 6 days/week) is more effective for improving clarity of vision, depth perception, eye movements, attention, visual-motor skill and quality of life than 4 months of continued glasses wear alone.

Who

• Children with amblyopia in one eye ages 5 to 17 years, who have stable visual acuity in current glasses.
• Families who don’t have plans of relocating during the 8 months of the study

Benefit

• Study testing and therapy at no cost
• Parents will receive a $40 electronic gift card at completion of each of the three follow-up, in-person testing visits. Each family will be offered a parking pass or parking stipend for all in-person study visits.

Funding Source

• Beta Sigma Kappa, Vivid Vision

More Info

Study flyer for Novel Amblyopia Treatment with Virtual Reality Games

Purpose

Evaluate if 4 months of home-based, Vivid Vision virtual-reality game therapy (25 min/day, 6 days/week) is more effective for improving clarity of vision, depth perception, eye movements, attention, visual-motor skill and quality of life than 4 months of continued glasses wear alone.

Who

• Children with amblyopia in one eye ages 5 to 17 years, who have stable visual acuity in current glasses.
• Families who don’t have plans of relocating during the 8 months of the study

Benefit

• Study testing and therapy at no cost
• Parents will receive a $40 electronic gift card at completion of each of the three follow-up, in-person testing visits. Each family will be offered a parking pass or parking stipend for all in-person study visits.

Funding Source

• Beta Sigma Kappa, Vivid Vision

More Info

Study flyer for Novel Amblyopia Treatment with Virtual Reality Games

Purpose

Evaluate if treating amblyopia (lazy eye) with glasses and patching at the same time improves vision as well as treating amblyopia first with glasses and then with patching, if needed.

Who

• Children ages 3 to < 13 years old
• Visual acuity in the amblyopic eye between 20/40 and 20/200
• No previous treatment for amblyopia, including glasses or contact lenses

Benefit

• Glasses are provided

Funding Source

• National Eye Institute (NEI)

More Info

Study flyer for Evaluate Sequential vs Simultaneous Spectacles plus Patching for Amblyopia in Children

Purpose

To see if a spray mist, delivered through a microdose dispenser can help to reduce the progression of nearsightedness in children.

Who

• Children age 3 to < 13 years old
• No previous use of medications related to myopia control.
• Glasses and or contact lens prescription between -1.00 D and -6.00 D

Funding Source

• Eyenovia

More Info

Study flyer for CHAPERONE

Purpose

To determine whether the amount of time spent outdoors, the thickness of a layer of blood vessels in the back of the eye, and/or the activity of certain cells in the back of the eye are related to eye growth and the progression of nearsightedness.

Who

• Nearsighted children who participated in the BLINK Study

Funding Source

• National Eye Institute (NEI)

Purpose

To evaluate the effectiveness of overminus glasses for the treatment of intermittent exotropia in children ages 3 to 10 years of age.

Who Participated

• Children ages 3 to 10 years of age
• Intermittent exotropia (outward eye turn)

Funding Source

• National Eye Institute (NEI)

Expected Completion Date

• August 2021

Purpose

To examine the effect of treatment for convergence insufficiency on reading and attention

Who Participated

• Children ages 9-14 (Grades 3-8)
• Children who have the following symptoms when reading: eye strain, headaches, blur, poor concentration, and losing their place
• Children with Convergence Insufficiency (CI), a problem with how the eyes work together

Expected Completion Date

• December 2019

Funding Source

• National Eye Institute (NEI)

Purpose

To determine whether a combination treatment of soft bifocal contact& lenses (typically used to help people older than 40 see up close) and low dose atropine eye drops (typically used to dilate the pupil) slows the progression of nearsightedness.

Who Participated

• Children ages 7-11
• Children who are nearsighted
• Children in good general health without problems that may affect contact lens wear
• Additional screening questions will be asked by phone or email

Expected Completion Date

• June 2020

Funding Source

• National Eye Institute (NEI)

Purpose:

The purpose of this study is to confirm the clinical performance of two different monthly lenses. Study participants will be fit into two lenses at random during the study, and during this time, three visits will take place at The OSU College of Optometry for clinical assessments. These visits will be scheduled at 7 days and 14 days after the first visit. Participants will answer online surveys about their lens wear between visits. Each visit will last 1 hour. Participants will receive study contact lenses and cleaning solution for the duration of the study. Compensation of $150 will be provided upon completion of all study visits.

To be eligible, you must:

1. Be at least 18 years old.
2. Current spherical soft contact lens wearer in the range of –0.50 to –6.25 in each eye.
3. Able and willing to wear contact lenses at least 5 days a week, for at least 8 hours a day.
4. Have healthy eyes.
5. Satisfy all other study eligibility and exclusion criteria.

If you have questions or would like to learn more about this study, please contact our study coordinators by email at OPT-EyeStudies@osu.edu or by phone at 614-292-8858

Purpose:

To explore the tear lipid layer thickness in individuals who wear eyeliner on their water line (are between the eyelashes and the eye). Participants will complete 2 visits approximately 1 week apart which involve taking a survey and having non-invasive examination of the front of the eye. Participants will be provided with a $25 Amazon gift card at the completion of all study procedures.

Who:

• Wear eyeliner on the waterline, also known as tightlining (eyeliner between the lashes and the eye)
• Be at least 18 years of age
• Not be pregnant or nursing
• Satisfy all other study eligibility criteria

Contact

Sonia Patel
Patel.4570@osu.edu

Purpose:

This study is looking to compare the use of multifocal contact lenses to progressive-addition (no-line bifocal) glasses. Participants will be asked to perform a hand/eye coordination task once while wearing glasses, and once while wearing contact lenses.

Eligibility:

1. Must currently have presbyopia (unable to focus on objects at near).
2. Must have up-to-date pair of progressive-addition glasses (addition power of +1.50 D or higher), worn for at least 2 weeks prior to screening visit.
3. Must be a wearer of multifocal contact lenses.
4. Meet other study eligibility criteria.

Contact:

iVERG Study Team
OPT-EyeStudies@osu.edu
614-292-8858

Purpose

Four-year study to evaluate the effectiveness of a daily eye drop on nearsightedness progression in children.

Who Participated

• Healthy children ages 3 to ≤17
• Nearsighted (myopic) in both eyes

Expected Completion

• September 2023

Publications

1. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaophthalmology/fullarticle/2805504

Funding Source

• Nevakar, LLC

Top Result

1. The lenses had high median rankings for comfort and vision during a long day of lens wear in addition to the health benefits of silicone hydrogel daily disposable lenses.

Publications

1. Fogt JS, Patton K. Long Day Wear Experience with Water Surface Daily Disposable Contact Lenses. Clin Optom (Auckl). 2022;14:93-99 https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTO.S367891

Funding Source

• Alcon, Inc.

Top Results

1. Among children 7-12 years old with previous treatment for lazy eye (aside from prescribed spectacles), there was no improvement to visual acuity or stereoacuity after 4-8 weeks of Dig Rush iPad game play, when compared to the group assigned to spectacle wear alone.
2. In children age 4-6 with lazy eye, Dig Rush game play for 4 weeks resulted in greater amblyopic eye visual acuity improvements, in comparison to the group with continued spectacle wear only. This improvement did not persist at 8 weeks, so long term effects are unclear.

Publications

1. Holmes JM, Manny RE, Lazar EL, Birch EE, Kelly KR, Summers AI, Martinson SR, Raghuram A, Colburn JD, Law C, Marsh JD, Bitner DP, Kraker RT, Wallace DK, Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group. A Randomized Trial of Binocular Dig Rush Game Treatment for Amblyopia in Children Aged 7 to 12 Years. Ophthalmology. 2019;126(3):456-466.
2. Manny RE, Holmes JM, Kraker RT, Li Z, Waters AL, Kelly KR, Kong L, Crouch ER, Lorenzana IJ, Alkharashi MS, Galvin JA, Rice ML, Melia BM, Cotter SA; on behalf of PEDIG. A Randomized Trial of Binocular Dig Rush Game Treatment for Amblyopia in Children Aged 4 to 6 Years of Age. Optom Vis Sci. 2022 Mar 1;99(3):213-227.

Funding Source

• National Eye Institute (NEI)

Results

• There was a significant difference in improvement of amblyopic eye visual acuity after 12 weeks of treatment with the therapeutic device in comparison to the continued glasses group.

Publications

1. Xiao S, Angjeli E, Wu HC, Gaier ED, Gomez S, Travers DA, Binenbaum G, Langer R, Hunter DG, Repka MX, For the Luminopia Pivotal Trial Group, Randomized Controlled Trial of a Dichoptic Digital Therapeutic for Amblyopia, Ophthalmology (2021), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2021.09.001.

Funding Source

• Luminopia, Inc.

Top Three Results

1. +2.50 D add soft multifocal contact lenses slow myopia progression and eye growth, but +1.50 D add soft multifocal contact lenses do not.
2. The +2.50 D add soft multifocal contact lenses slowed myopia progression by 0.45 D and eye growth by 0.23 mm over three years, compared to single vision contact lenses.
3. Compared to single vision contact lenses, soft multifocal contact lenses with +2.50 D add had similar high contrast distance and near visual acuity, but just 1.5-letter worse low contrast distance visual acuity.

Publications

1. Walline JJ, Gaume Giannoni A, Sinnott LT, Chandler MA, Huang J, Mutti DO, Jones-Jordan LA, Berntsen DA and the BLINK Study Group. A Randomized Trial of Soft Multifocal Contact Lenses for Myopia Control: Baseline Data and Methods. Optom Vis Sci. 2017;94:856-866.
2. Schulle KL, Berntsen DA, Sinnott LT, Bickle KM, Gostović AT, Pierce GE, Jones-Jordan LA, Mutti DO, Walline JJ, and the BLINK Study Group. Visual Acuity and Over-refraction in Myopic Children Fitted with Soft Multifocal Contact Lenses. Optom Vis Sci. 2018;95(4):292-298.
3. Mutti DO, Sinnott LT, Reuter KS, Walker MK, Berntsen DA, Jones-Jordan LA, Walline JJ and the BLINK Study Group. Peripheral Refraction and Eye Lengths in Myopic Children in the Bifocal Lenses in Nearsighted Kids (Blink) Study. Transl Vis Sci Technol 2019;8:17.
4. Walline JJ, Walker MK, Mutti DO, Jones-Jordan LA, Sinnott LT, Giannoni AG, Bickle KM, Schulle KL, Nixon A, Pierce GE, Berntsen DA, and the BLINK Study Group. Effect of High Add Power, Medium Add Power, or Single-Vision Contact Lenses on Myopia Progression in Children: The BLINK Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2020;324:571-80.

Funding Source

• National Eye Institute (NEI)

Top Three Results

1. Children ages 4 to 5 years old who have uncorrected farsightedness (3.00–6.00 diopters) with reduced near visual function performed significantly worse on a test of early literacy as compared to children without moderate farsightedness.
2. Children with moderate farsightedness and normal near visual function performed similar to children without moderate farsightedness.
3. Further studies are needed to determine the effect of correction for moderate hyperopia on near visual function and early literacy.

Publications

1. Uncorrected Hyperopia and Preschool Literacy: Results of the Vision in Preschoolers-Hyperopia in Preschoolers (VIP-HIP) Study. Ophthalmology 2016; 123(4):681-689.
2. https://optometry.osu.edu/news/2016-01-27/farsighted-kids%E2%80%99-reading-skills-fall-behind-they-start-first-grade

Funding Source

• National Eye Institute (NEI)

Top Three Results

1. Contact lens wear improves children’s physical appearance, athletic competence, and social acceptance self-perceptions
2. Soft contact lens wear increases myopia progression by less than 0.25 D over three years
3. Older children, children who participate in recreational activities, and children who do not like their appearance in glasses experience the greatest improvements in vision-related quality of life.

Publications

1. Rah MJ, Walline JJ, Jones-Jordan LA, et al. Vision specific quality of life of pediatric contact lens wearers. Optom Vis Sci. 2010;87(8):560-566.
2. Jones-Jordan LA, Chitkara M, Coffey B, et al. A comparison of spectacle and contact lens wearing times in the ACHIEVE study. Clin Exp Optom. 2010;93(3):157-163.
3. Walline JJ, Jones LA, Sinnott L, et al. Randomized trial of the effect of contact lens wear on self-perception in children. Optom Vis Sci. 2009;86(3):222-232.
4. Walline JJ, Jones LA, Sinnott L, et al. A randomized trial of the effect of soft contact lenses on myopia progression in children. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2008;49(11):4702-4706.
5. Walline JJ, Jones LA, Chitkara M, et al. The Adolescent and Child Health Initiative to Encourage Vision Empowerment (ACHIEVE) study design and baseline data. Optom Vis Sci. 2006;83(1):37-45.
6. Walline JJ, Long S, Zadnik K. Daily disposable contact lens wear in myopic children. Optom Vis Sci. 2004;81(4):255-259.

Funding Source

• Johnson & Johnson Vision Care Institute

Top Three Results

1. Over eight years, 20% of keratoconus patients develop a new corneal scar
2. The vision-related quality of life of keratoconus patients is similar to patients with category 3-4 age-related macular degeneration
3. Keratoconus patients experience eye pain, regardless of whether or not they wear gas permeable contact lenses

Publications

1. Rebenitsch RL, Kymes SM, Walline JJ, Gordon MO. The lifetime economic burden of keratoconus: a decision analysis using a Markov model. Am J Ophthalmol. 2011;151(5):768-773 e762.
2. Fink BA, Sinnott LT, Wagner H, Friedman C, Zadnik K, CLEK Study Group. The influence of gender and hormone status on the severity and progression of keratoconus. Cornea. 2010;29(1):65-72.
3. Szczotka-Flynn L, Slaughter M, McMahon T, et al. Disease severity and family history in keratoconus. Br J Ophthalmol. 2008;92(8):1108-1111.
4. Kymes SM, Walline JJ, Zadnik K, Sterling J, Gordon MO, CLEK Study Group. Changes in the quality-of-life of people with keratoconus. Am J Ophthalmol. 2008;145(4):611-617.
5. Wagner H, Barr JT, Zadnik K. Collaborative Longitudinal Evaluation of Keratoconus (CLEK) Study: methods and findings to date. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2007;30(4):223-232.
6. Gordon MO, Steger-May K, Szczotka-Flynn L, et al. Baseline factors predictive of incident penetrating keratoplasty in keratoconus. Am J Ophthalmol. 2006;142(6):923-930.
7. McMahon TT, Szczotka-Flynn L, Barr JT, et al. A new method for grading the severity of keratoconus: the Keratoconus Severity Score (KSS). Cornea. 2006;25(7):794-800.
8. McMahon TT, Edrington TB, Szczotka-Flynn L, et al. Longitudinal changes in corneal curvature in keratoconus. Cornea. 2006;25(3):296-305.
9. Davis LJ, Schechtman KB, Wilson BS, et al. Longitudinal changes in visual acuity in keratoconus. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006;47(2):489-500.
10. Zadnik K, Barr JT, Steger-May K, et al. Comparison of flat and steep rigid contact lens fitting methods in keratoconus. Optom Vis Sci. 2005;82(12):1014-1021.
11. Barr JT, Wilson BS, Gordon MO, et al. Estimation of the incidence and factors predictive of corneal scarring in the Collaborative Longitudinal Evaluation of Keratoconus (CLEK) Study. Cornea. 2006;25(1):16-25.
12. Fink BA, Wagner H, Steger-May K, et al. Differences in keratoconus as a function of gender. Am J Ophthalmol. 2005;140(3):459-468.
13. McMahon TT, Anderson RJ, Roberts C, et al. Repeatability of corneal topography measurement in keratoconus with the TMS-1. Optom Vis Sci. 2005;82(5):405-415.
14. Kymes SM, Walline JJ, Zadnik K, Gordon MO, Collaborative Longitudinal Evaluation of Keratoconus study g. Quality of life in keratoconus. Am J Ophthalmol. 2004;138(4):527-535.
15. Nichols JJ, Steger-May K, Edrington TB, Zadnik K, group Cs. The relation between disease asymmetry and severity in keratoconus. Br J Ophthalmol. 2004;88(6):788-791.
16. Edrington TB, Gundel RE, Libassi DP, et al. Variables affecting rigid contact lens comfort in the collaborative longitudinal evaluation of keratoconus (CLEK) study. Optom Vis Sci. 2004;81(3):182-188.
17. Zadnik K, Steger-May K, Fink BA, et al. Between-eye asymmetry in keratoconus. Cornea. 2002;21(7):671-679.
18. Shen JF, McMahon TT, Cheng EL, et al. Lysosomal hydrolase staining of conjunctival impression cytology specimens in keratoconus. Cornea. 2002;21(5):447-452.
19. Szczotka LB, Barr JT, Zadnik K. A summary of the findings from the Collaborative Longitudinal Evaluation of Keratoconus (CLEK) Study. CLEK Study Group. Optometry. 2001;72(9):574-584.
20. Raasch TW, Schechtman KB, Davis LJ, Zadnik K, CLEK Study Group. Repeatability of subjective refraction in myopic and keratoconic subjects: results of vector analysis. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2001;21(5):376-383.
21. McMahon TT, Anderson RJ, Joslin CE, Rosas GA, CLEK Study Topography Analysis Group. Precision of three topography instruments in keratoconus subjects. Optom Vis Sci. 2001;78(8):599-604.
22. Fink BA, Barr JT, Edrington TB, et al. A comparison of two methods of evaluating cornea-to-contact lens base curve fluorescein patterns in keratoconus. Optom Vis Sci. 2001;78(8):589-598.
23. Zadnik K, Barr JT, Edrington TB, et al. Corneal scarring and vision in keratoconus: a baseline report from the Collaborative Longitudinal Evaluation of Keratoconus (CLEK) Study. Cornea. 2000;19(6):804-812.
24. Barr JT, Zadnik K, Wilson BS, et al. Factors associated with corneal scarring in the Collaborative Longitudinal Evaluation of Keratoconus (CLEK) Study. Cornea. 2000;19(4):501-507.
25. Edrington TB, Szczotka LB, Barr JT, et al. Rigid contact lens fitting relationships in keratoconus. Collaborative Longitudinal Evaluation of Keratoconus (CLEK) Study Group. Optom Vis Sci. 1999;76(10):692-699.
26. Barr JT, Schechtman KB, Fink BA, et al. Corneal scarring in the Collaborative Longitudinal Evaluation of Keratoconus (CLEK) Study: baseline prevalence and repeatability of detection. Cornea. 1999;18(1):34-46.
27. Davis LJ, Schechtman KB, Begley CG, Shin JA, Zadnik K, CLEK Study Group. Repeatability of refraction and corrected visual acuity in keratoconus. Optom Vis Sci. 1998;75(12):887-896.
28. Zadnik K, Barr JT, Edrington TB, et al. Baseline findings in the Collaborative Longitudinal Evaluation of Keratoconus (CLEK) Study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1998;39(13):2537-2546.
29. Edrington TB, Szczotka LB, Begley CG, et al. Repeatability and agreement of two corneal-curvature assessments in keratoconus: keratometry and the first definite apical clearance lens (FDACL). CLEK Study Group. Collaborative Longitudinal Evaluation of Keratoconus. Cornea. 1998;17(3):267-277.
30. Gordon MO, Schechtman KB, Davis LJ, McMahon TT, Schornack J, Zadnik K. Visual acuity repeatability in keratoconus: impact on sample size. Collaborative Longitudinal Evaluation of Keratoconus (CLEK) Study Group. Optom Vis Sci. 1998;75(4):249-257.
31. Gundel RE, Libassi DP, Zadnik K, et al. Feasibility of fitting contact lenses with apical clearance in keratoconus. Optom Vis Sci. 1996;73(12):729-732.
32. Edrington TB, Barr JT, Zadnik K, et al. Standardized rigid contact lens fitting protocol for keratoconus. Optom Vis Sci. 1996;73(6):369-375.
33. Zadnik K, Barr JT, Gordon MO, Edrington TB, CLEK Study Group. Biomicroscopic signs and disease severity in keratoconus. Cornea. 1996;15(2):139-146.

Funding Source

• National Institutes of Health EY10419, EY10069, EY10077, EY12656, and EY0268

Top Three Results

1. Time spent outdoors makes you less likely to become nearsighted, but it does not affect the progression of myopia.
2. Cycloplegic refractive error predicts the onset of myopia as well as a composite of eight factors, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of approximately 0.9.
3. Hyperopic refractive error greater than +2.50 D in first grade is likely to persist through childhood.

Publications

1. Zadnik K, Sinnott LT, Cotter SA, et al. Prediction of juvenile-onset myopia. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2015;133(6):683-689.
2. Jones-Jordan LA, Sinnott LT, Graham ND, et al. The contributions of near work and outdoor activity to the correlation between siblings in the Collaborative Longitudinal Evaluation of Ethnicity and Refractive Error (CLEERE) Study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2014;55(10):6333-6339.
3. Jones-Jordan LA, Sinnott LT, Cotter SA, et al. Time outdoors, visual activity, and myopia progression in juvenile-onset myopes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012;53(11):7169-7175.
4. Manny RE, Sinnott LT, Jones-Jordan LA, et al. Predictors of adequate correction following vision screening failure. Optom Vis Sci. 2012;89(6):892-900.
5. Mutti DO, Mitchell GL, Sinnott LT, et al. Corneal and crystalline lens dimensions before and after myopia onset. Optom Vis Sci. 2012;89(3):251-262.
6. Messer DH, Mitchell GL, Twelker JD, Crescioni M, CLEERE Study Group. Spectacle wear in children given spectacles through a school-based program. Optom Vis Sci. 2012;89(1):19-26.
7. Manny RE, Mitchell GL, Cotter SA, et al. Intraocular pressure, ethnicity, and refractive error. Optom Vis Sci. 2011;88(12):1445-1453.
8. Mutti DO, Cooper ME, Dragan E, et al. Vitamin D receptor (VDR) and group-specific component (GC, vitamin D-binding protein) polymorphisms in myopia. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011;52(6):3818-3824.
9. Berntsen DA, Sinnott LT, Mutti DO, Zadnik K, CLEERE Study Group. Accommodative lag and juvenile-onset myopia progression in children wearing refractive correction. Vision Res. 2011;51(9):1039-1046.
10. Jones-Jordan LA, Mitchell GL, Cotter SA, et al. Visual activity before and after the onset of juvenile myopia. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011;52(3):1841-1850.
11. Mutti DO, Sinnott LT, Mitchell GL, et al. Relative peripheral refractive error and the risk of onset and progression of myopia in children. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011;52(1):199-205.
12. Jones-Jordan LA, Sinnott LT, Manny RE, et al. Early childhood refractive error and parental history of myopia as predictors of myopia. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2010;51(1):115-121.
13. Twelker JD, Mitchell GL, Messer DH, et al. Children's Ocular Components and Age, Gender, and Ethnicity. Optom Vis Sci. 2009;86(8):918-935.
14. Mutti DO, Hayes JR, Mitchell GL, et al. Refractive error, axial length, and relative peripheral refractive error before and after the onset of myopia. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2007;48(6):2510-2519.
15. Mutti DO, Mitchell GL, Hayes JR, et al. Accommodative lag before and after the onset of myopia. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006;47(3):837-846.
16. Zadnik K, Manny RE, Yu JA, et al. Ocular component data in schoolchildren as a function of age and gender. Optom Vis Sci. 2003;80(3):226-236.
17. Zadnik K, Jones LA, Irvin BC, et al. Myopia and ambient night-time lighting. CLEERE Study Group. Collaborative Longitudinal Evaluation of Ethnicity and Refractive Error. Nature. 2000;404(6774):143-144.
18. Shin JA, Manny RE, Kleinstein RN, Mutti DO, Zadnik K. Short-term repeatability of hand-held keratometry measurements. Optom Vis Sci. 1999;76(4):247-253.

Funding Sources

• National Institutes of Health EY08893

Study of binocular computer activities for treatment of amblyopia

Purpose

To evaluate the effectiveness of a new iPad treatment for lazy eye (amblyopia) as compared to standard patching treatment in school-aged children.

Who Participated

• Children ages 5 to 16
• Children with amblyopia (lazy eye) in one eye

Expected Completion

• July 2017

Funding Source

• National Eye Institute (NEI)

Results

• In children aged 5 to younger than 13 years, amblyopic-eye VA improved with binocular game play and with patching, particularly in younger children (age 5 to <7 years) without prior amblyopia treatment.

Publications

1. Holmes JM, Manh, VM  Lazar EL, Beck RW, Birch EE, Kraker RT, Crouch ER, Erzurum SA, Khuddus N, Summers AI, Wallace DK, for the Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group. Effect of a Binocular iPad Game vs Part-time Patching in Children Aged 5 to 12 Years With Amblyopia: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2017 Available at: http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaophthalmology/article-abstract/2578715. Last accessed: 4/11/17.

The primary goal of the VIP Study was to identify whether vision-screening tests can accurately identify preschool-aged children who would benefit from a comprehensive vision examination because of signs of amblyopia, strabismus, and/or significant refractive error.

Purpose

Vision problems are not usually obvious but they are the fourth most prevalent class of disability in the United States and the most prevalent handicapping conditions in childhood. Undiagnosed vision problems can threaten the health and normal development of young children, as they may be less likely to do well in school and may be less likely to become productive adults. However, fewer than 22 percent of preschool children receive some type of vision screening and fewer than 15 percent receive an eye examination. Early detection of vision problems in preschoolers gives us a chance to help these children so that they can succeed in school and later in life.

Currently, vision screening is performed using many different types of screening tests. The primary goal of the VIP Study is to determine whether there are tests or combinations of tests that can be used effectively to determine which preschoolers would benefit from a comprehensive eye examination to detect amblyopia, strabismus, significant refractive error, and/or reduced visual acuity. Amblyopia (2-5%), strabismus (3-4%), and significant refractive error (10-15%) are the prevalent and significant vision disorders of preschool-aged children.

Funding Source

• National Eye Institute (NEI)

Published Articles (as of 04/13/14)

1. Vision In Preschoolers (VIP) Study Group. Visual acuity results in school-aged children and adults: Lea symbols chart versus Bailey-Lovie chart. Optom Vis Sci 2003;80:650-4.
2. Vision In Preschoolers (VIP) Study Group. Threshold visual acuity testing of preschool children using the crowded HOTV acuity test and the Lea symbols acuity test. J AAPOS 2003;7:396-9.
3. Schmidt PP, Maguire MG, Moore B, Cyert L for the Vision In Preschoolers Study Group. Testability of preschoolers on stereotests used to screen vision disorders. Optom Vis Sci. 2003;80:753-757.
4. Vision In Preschoolers (VIP) Study Group. Comparison of preschool vision screening tests as administered by licensed eye care professionals in the Vision In Preschoolers (VIP) Study.  Ophthalmology 2004;111:637-50.
5. Vision In Preschoolers (VIP) Study Group. Preschool visual acuity screening with HOTV and Lea symbols: Testability and between-test agreement. Optom Vis Sci 2004;81:678-83.
6. Vision In Preschoolers (VIP) Study Group. The electronic visual acuity tester: Testability in preschool children. Optom Vis Sci 2004;81:238-44.
7. Vision In Preschoolers (VIP) Study Group. Sensitivity of screening test performance for detecting VIP-targeted vision disorders and associated risk factors when specificity is set at 94%. Optom Vis Sci 2005; 82:432-438.
8. Vision In Preschoolers (VIP) Study Group. Preschool vision screening tests administered by nurse screeners compared to lay screeners in the Vision in Preschoolers Study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2005; 46:2639-2648.
9. Vision In Preschoolers (VIP) Study Group .  Implementation of a preschool vision screening program in a mobile setting. The NHSA Dialog 2005; 8:16-24.
10. Vision in Preschoolers Study Group.  Random Dot E Stereotest: Testability and Reliability in 3- to 5-Year-Old Children.  JAAPOS 2006; 10:507-514. PMC1884952
11. Vision In Preschoolers (VIP) Study Group.  Children unable to perform screening tests in Vision In Preschoolers Study: proportion with ocular conditions and impact on measures of test accuracy.  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2007; 48:83-87.
12. Vision in Preschoolers (VIP) Study Group. Impact of confidence number on the screening accuracy of the Retinomax autorefractor.  Optom Vis Sci 2007; 84:181-185.
13. Vision In Preschoolers (VIP) Study Group.  Does Assessing Eye Alignment along with Refractive Error or Visual Acuity Increase Sensitivity for Detecting Strabismus in Preschool Vision Screening? Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2007; 48:3115-3125. PMC 2140241.
14. Kulp MT, Vision in Preschoolers Study Group.  Findings from the Vision in Preschoolers (VIP) Study.  Optom Vis Sci  . 2009;86:619-23. Erratum in: Optom Vis Sci. 2009;86:1026. PMC 2806243.
15. Vision in Preschoolers Study Group.  Effect of Age Using Lea Symbols or HOTV for Preschool Vision Screening. Optom Vis Sci 2010;87:87-95. PMC2895492.
16. Vision in Preschoolers (VIP) Study Group. Impact of confidence number on the screening accuracy of the SureSight vision screener. Optom Vis Sci 2010;87:96-103. Epub 2010 Jan 7.  NIHMS 181130 PMC 2842082.
17. Vision In Preschoolers (VIP) Study Group. Comparison of the Retinomax and Palm-AR auto-refractors: A pilot study. Optom Vis Sci. 2011;88:830-6. Epub 2011 Apr 21. PMC3125429.
18. Ying G-S, Maguire M, Quinn G, Kulp M, Cyert L. ROC Analysis of the accuracy of noncycloplegic retinoscopy, Retinomax autorefractor and SureSight vision screener for preschool vision screening.  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 28 2011;52:9658–64. Epub 2011 Nov 28. PMC3341123.
19. Ying G-S, Huang J, Maguire MG, Quinn G, Kulp MT, Ciner E, Cyert L, Orel-Bixler D, and Vision In Preschoolers (VIP) Study Group. Association of anisometropia with unilateral amblyopia, interocular acuitydifference and stereoacuity in preschoolers. Ophthalmology 2013;120:495-503.  PMC3582825.
20. Huang J, Maguire M, Ciner E, Kulp M, Quinn G, Orel-Bixler D, Cyert L, Moore B, Ying G-S.  Inter-tester agreement in refractive error measurements between lay and nurse screener in administering Retinomax autorefractor and SureSight vision screener. Optom Vis Sci 2013; 90:1128-1137. PMC3894690.
21. Pascual M, Huang J, Maguire MG, Kulp MT, Quinn GE, Ciner E, Cyert LA, Orel-Bixler D, Moore B, Ying G-S, , and the Vision in Preschoolers (VIP) Study Group.  Risk factors for amblyopia in the Vision in Preschoolers (VIP) Study. Ophthalmology 2014; 121:622-629. Epub 2013 Oct 18.  PMC3943664.
22. Ying G-S, Maguire M, Ciner E, Cyert L, Kulp MT, Quinn GE, Orel-Bixler D, Moore B, and the Vision in Preschoolers (VIP) Study Group.  Prevalence of vision disorders by racial and ethnic group among children participating in Head Start. Ophthalmology 2014; 121:630-6. Epub 2013 Oct 31.
23. -E.1. Repka MX. A close look at pediatric eye disease. Ophthalmology 2014:121:617-618.
24. Ciner EB, Ying G-S, Kulp MT, Maguire MG, Quinn GE, Cyert LA, Orel-Bixler D, Moore B, Huang J.  Stereoacuity of preschool children with and without vision disorders. Optom Vis Sci 2014 ;91:351-8.
25. -E.1. Ciner EB, Ying G-S, Kulp MT, Maguire MG, Quinn GE, Orel-Bixler D, Cyert LA, Moore B, Huang J, Vision in Preschoolers (VIP) Study Group.  Authors' Response: Stereoacuity of Preschool Children with and without Vision Disorders. Optom Vis Sci 2014;91:e157-8.
26. Kulp MT, Ying G-S, Huang J, Maguire M, Quinn GE, Ciner EB, Cyert LA, Orel-Bixler DA, Moore BD. Associations between hyperopia and other vision and refractive error characteristics.   Optom Vis Sci. 2014; 91:383-9. Epub 2014 Jan 30.
27. Kulp MT, Ying G-S, Huang J, Maguire M, Quinn GE, Ciner EB, Cyert LA, Orel-Bixler DA, Moore BD.  Accuracy of noncycloplegic retinoscopy, Retinomax autorefractor and SureSight Vision Screener for detecting significant refractive errors. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2014 6; 55:1378-85. PMC3945898.
28. Huang J, Maguire MG, Ciner C, Kulp MT, Cyert LA, Quinn GE, Orel-Bixler D, Moore B, Ying G-S, and Vision In Preschoolers (VIP) Study Group. Risk factors for astigmatism in the Vision In Preschoolers (VIP) Study. Optom Vis Sci 2014;91:514-21.

Earlier Publications by the VIP Study Group

1. Ciner EB, Schmidt PP, Orel-Bixler D, Dobson V, Maguire M, Cyert L, Moore B, Schultz J. Vision screening of preschool children: Evaluating the past, looking toward the future. Optom Vision Sci 1998;75:571-84.
2. Ciner EB, Dobson V, Schmidt PP, Allen D, Cyert L, Maguire M, Moore B, Orel-Bixler D, Schultz J. A survey of vision screening policy of preschool children in the United States. Surv Ophthalmol 1999;43;445-57.

Publications

1. Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group. Suh DW, Kulp MT, Dean TW, Wallace DK, Kraker, RT, Manny, RE, Erzurum SA, Pang, Y, Shea CJ, Avallone JM, on behalf of the Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group. Clinical factors associated with moderate hyperopia in preschool children with normal stereopsis and visual acuity. Journal of American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus 2016;Oct 20(5):455-7.

Funding Source

• National Eye Institute (NEI)