Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 articles
    • Obituary notices
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Physicians & Subscribers
    • Benefits for Canadian physicians
    • CPD Credits for CMA Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription prices
    • Obituary notices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
    • Avis de décès
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 articles
    • Obituary notices
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Physicians & Subscribers
    • Benefits for Canadian physicians
    • CPD Credits for CMA Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription prices
    • Obituary notices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
    • Avis de décès
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
  • Listen to CMAJ podcasts
Letters

Adopt US recommendation on vision screening in older adults

Yvonne M. Buys
CMAJ September 24, 2018 190 (38) E1144; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.70063
Yvonne M. Buys
Ophthalmologist; president, Canadian Ophthalmological Society, Ottawa, Ont.
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

CMAJ recently published a guideline from the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care for family physicians or other primary care providers that recommended against vision screening, defined as either asking a question about vision health or vision testing such as visual acuity, for Canadians 65 years of age or older based on “low-quality evidence.”1 The methodology of the review is not being challenged. However, the conclusions are not supported and are being questioned by the Canadian Ophthalmological Society for several reasons.

The literature on which this guideline was based is from studies outside of Canada. Health care policies, such as public funding of routine eye examinations, differ by region, and this should be considered when making recommendations. In Canada, routine eye examinations performed by optometrists or ophthalmologists for older adults are not funded by governments in Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Prince Edward Island, which includes 460 700 Canadians (7.4%) aged 65 years or older who rely on family physicians as the entry point for eye care.2

Wilson and colleagues referenced the 2005 Canadian Community Health Survey and reported that 59% of adults 65 years or older consulted an eye care professional in the previous year.1,3 This statistic is misleading because it also included those with a known eye condition. For those without a known eye condition, only 51% of older adults living in a province with government-insured eye examinations had seen an eye care professional in the preceding year, and this decreased to 42% for those living in the four provinces without government coverage.3 The prevalence of eye disease increases with age; therefore, in this vulnerable population, more than 50% had not seen an eye care professional and are at risk, especially for eye disease that may be asymptomatic initially.

The guideline does not apply to certain groups, excluding those with “a condition known to predispose to vision impairment, such as glaucoma or diabetes.”1 However, a physician may not be aware that a patient was in an excluded category unless they asked about vision issues. In addition, some potentially treatable eye diseases may not be known to the patient. For example, up to 50% of those with glaucoma in the industrialized world are unaware that they have the disease and are not receiving care.4–6 In 2012, nearly half of Canadians who were newly diagnosed with open-angle glaucoma had moderate or advanced disease at the time of diagnosis, and more than half of these patients were asymptomatic.7

Instead of recommending that primary care providers ignore vision health, they should be encouraged to educate patients about common risk factors for eye disease and the importance of routine eye examinations.

Given that the authors acknowledged there was no evidence of harm associated with screening adults for impaired vision and the evidence overall for this analysis was low quality, the Canadian Ophthalmological Society believes that a recommendation against screening seems to be extreme. Furthermore, the cost simply to inquire about a patient’s vision health is low. For many older adults, a family physician may be their only contact with the health care system, and denying this opportunity to diagnose a vision-related health care issue is misguided.

The society suggests that the recommendations of the US Preventive Services Task Force, namely, no recommendation for or against screening, be adopted instead.8

Footnotes

  • Competing interests: Yvonne Buys is the president of the Canadian Ophthalmological Society.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Wilson BJ,
    2. Courage S,
    3. Bacchus M,
    4. et al
    . Screening for impaired vision in community-dwelling adults aged 65 years and older in primary care settings. CMAJ 2018;190:E588–94.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    Overview of provincial health coverage for optometric care [updated fall 2016]. Ottawa: The Canadian Association of Optometrists; 2016. Available: https://opto.ca/sites/default/files/resources/documents/prov_health_coverage_nov_2017.pdf (accessed 2018 May 29).
  3. ↵
    Canadian Community Health Survey — healthy aging (CCHS). Ottawa: Statistics Canada; 2010. Available: www23.statcan.gc.ca/imdb/p2SV.pl?Function=getSurvey&SDDS=5146 (accessed 2018 May 29).
  4. ↵
    1. Sommer A,
    2. Tielsch JM,
    3. Katz J,
    4. et al
    . Relationship between intraocular pressure and primary open angle glaucoma among white and black Americans. The Baltimore Eye Survey. Arch Ophthalmol 1991;109:1090–5.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Mitchell P,
    2. Smith W,
    3. Attebo K,
    4. et al
    . Prevalence of open angle glaucoma in Australia — The Blue Mountains Eye Study. Ophthalmology 1996;103: 1661–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Anraku A,
    2. Jin YP,
    3. Butty Z,
    4. et al
    . The Toronto epidemiology glaucoma survey: a pilot study. Can J Ophthalmol 2011;46:352–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Buys YM,
    2. Gaspo R,
    3. Kwok K
    Canadian Glaucoma Risk Factor Study Group. Referral source, symptoms, and severity at diagnosis of ocular hypertension or open-angle glaucoma in various practices. Can J Ophthalmol 2012;47:217–22.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF)Siu AL, Bibbins-Domingo K, Grossman DC, et al. Screening for impaired visual acuity in older adults: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA 2016;315:908–14.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 190 (38)
CMAJ
Vol. 190, Issue 38
24 Sep 2018
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Adopt US recommendation on vision screening in older adults
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Adopt US recommendation on vision screening in older adults
Yvonne M. Buys
CMAJ Sep 2018, 190 (38) E1144; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.70063

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Adopt US recommendation on vision screening in older adults
Yvonne M. Buys
CMAJ Sep 2018, 190 (38) E1144; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.70063
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • Screening for impaired vision in community-dwelling adults aged 65 years and older in primary care settings
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • The 5 Ps need an update: toward a comprehensive sexual history
  • Don’t ignore perimenopause
  • Hospital-at-home programs in Canada: challenges and pitfalls
Show more Letters

Similar Articles

 

View Latest Classified Ads

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • CPD credits
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Advisory Panels
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions
CMAJ Group

Copyright 2023, CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

To receive any of these resources in an accessible format, please contact us at CMAJ Group, 500-1410 Blair Towers Place, Ottawa ON, K1J 9B9; p: 1-888-855-2555; e: [email protected]

CMA Civility, Accessibility, Privacy

 

Powered by HighWire