Clinical Prescribing Philosophies Survey for Hyperopia in RiyadhCorrespondence Address :
Department of Optometry and Vision Science, CAMS, King Saud University,
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
E-mail: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
Introduction: The prescribing philosophies of medical practitioners differ from group to group and place to place. To study the differences might be useful in developing standards of practice to improve outcomes.
Aim: In this survey-basedstudy, Riyadh optometrists were surveyed to evaluate the prescribing philosophies for asymptomatic hyperopic children.
Materials and Methods: The optometrists were selected from the reputed hospitals of ophthalmology/optometry clinics in Riyadh. They were given the survey of Lyons SA. Sixty surveys were given to the responsible authorities of eight hospitals for the distribution to their optometrists. The survey questionnaire included questions about the amount of hyperopia and anisometropia in asymptomatic children. The questions were included for three age groups; 6 months, 2 years, and 4 years.
Results: A total of 26 surveys (43.3%) were returned and analysed. For six-month-old infants the majority of Riyadh optometrists reported that they prescribe for more than 3D (38.5%), and for more than 5D (27%) of hyperopia. As for two-year-old children 73% of Riyadh optometrists reported to prescribe for asymptomatic hyperopia more than 3D. Majority of Riyadh optometrists (73%) reported that they would consider prescribing for more than 3D of hyperopia for asymptomatic four-year-old children.
Conclusion: A general understanding of the prescribing philosophies of optometrists in Riyadh found a lack of consensus on prescribing philosophies for hyperopic children.
Children, Infants, Prescription, Refractive error
Date of Submission: Nov 02, 2019
Date of Peer Review: Nov 22, 2019
Date of Acceptance: Feb 11, 2020
Date of Publishing: Apr 01, 2020
• Financial or Other Competing Interests: As declared above
• Was Ethics Committee Approval obtained for this study? Yes
• Was informed consent obtained from the subjects involved in the study? Yes
• For any images presented appropriate consent has been obtained from the subjects. NA
PLAGIARISM CHECKING METHODS:
• Plagiarism X-checker: Nov 04, 2019
• Manual Googling: Feb 10, 2020
• iThenticate Software: Mar 16, 2020 (17%)
ETYMOLOGY: Author Origin
- Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
- Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
- Academic Search Complete Database
- Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
- Google Scholar
- HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
- Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
- Journal seek Database
- Popline (reproductive health literature)