SIGNIFICANCE This study brings awareness of racial/ethnic difference of refractive error characteristics in clinics. PURPOSE This study aimed to assess longitudinal change in refractive errors over a 36-month period in Hispanic and Black children. METHODS Children (2.4 to 15 years old) were studied. Cycloplegic refraction was measured annually. Spherical equivalent was calculated. Astigmatism was evaluated by magnitude of cylinder and power vector (J 0 and J 45 ). Absolute value of interocular spherical equivalent difference was used to calculate anisometropia. Mixed-linear model was used to analyze longitudinal annual change in spherical equivalent, cylinder, J 0 , and J 45 over 36 months. RESULTS A total of 485 participants (310 Black, 175 Hispanic) met the criteria. At the baseline examination, prevalence of myopia, emmetropia, and hyperopia was 39% (n = 187), 31% (n = 150), and 30% (n = 148), respectively. Spherical equivalent of Black children was not significantly different from that in Hispanic children (0.10 ± 2.92 vs. −0.37 ± 2.05 D, p=0.06); however, the Hispanic children had a significantly higher cylinder compared with Black children (Hispanic: 1.46 ± 1.57 D vs. Black: 0.92 ± 1.07 D; p<0.001). Both J 0 (p<0.001) and J 45 (p=0.01) were significantly different between two groups; the Hispanic children had more with-the-rule astigmatism and oblique astigmatism than the Black children. Prevalence of anisometropia (≥1 D) was higher in Black children (14%) compared with Hispanic children (5%, p=0.006). Over 36 months, spherical equivalent significantly decreased an average of 0.69 D (0.23 D/y, p<0.001) for both groups; neither astigmatism nor anisometropia changed significantly (p>0.05). CONCLUSIONS Astigmatism in the Hispanic children was significantly higher than in Black children. However, the Black children had a higher prevalence and degree of anisometropia than the Hispanic children.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pang et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: