Search Results

Abstract

A conjuntivite alérgica (CA) é uma condição frequente, debilitante e responsável por grande impacto econômico, proporcionalmente maior quando acomete crianças. Essas diretrizes foram desenvolvidas com base na literatura científica (PubMed/Medline) e na experiência de um Comitê de Especialistas composto por membros da Sociedade Brasileira de Oftalmologia Pediátrica, do Conselho Brasileiro de Oftalmologia, da Sociedade Brasileira de Pediatria e da Associação Brasileira de Alergia e Imunologia. A conjuntivite alérgica é considerada controlada quando os sintomas não são desconfortáveis ou estão presentes por dois dias na semana; o escore visual pela escala analógica é inferior a 5 e o grau de hiperemia conjuntival é de 0-1 pela escala de Efron. A conjuntivite alérgica deve ser classificada em leve, moderada, grave e com risco de perda visual para tratamento e frequência de monitoramento adequados. Esta diretriz orienta o diagnóstico, tratamento e monitoramento da conjuntivite alérgica pediátrica, considerando aspectos clínicos e demográficos das condições alérgicas no Brasil.

Keywords: Conjuntivite alérgica; Rinite alérgica sazonal; Hipersensibilidade; Criança

Abstract

PURPOSE: This cross-sectional study compared best-corrected visual acuity obtained using Cloudscaper symbols, a novel optotype developed according to ETDRS specifications for children's virtual screening, with that obtained using LEA symbols.
METHODS: A total of 560 children aged 3-16 yr underwent visual acuity test with both Cloudscaper symbols and LS. The test application was standardized using the EyeSpy algorithm. Additionally, 147 participants were tested with the standard Snellen E paper chart. Paired t tests were performed to assess the clinical significance of logMAR visual acuity differences.
RESULTS: The mean logMAR visual acuity with LEA symbols was 0.12 (standard deviation [SD]=0.18; range, -0.10 to 0.80), while with Cloudscaper symbols it was 0.18 (SD=0.19; range, -0.10 to 0.80). The mean difference between Cloudscaper symbols and LEA symbols was 0.099 logMAR (approximately 0.5 optotypes; SD=0.08; range, 0.0-0.14; p<0.0001). Cloudscaper symbols slightly underestimated visual acuity compared to LEA symbols. Visual acuity measured by both methods was highly correlated (Spearman's r=0.74, p<0.0001). The mean visual acuity difference between Cloudscaper symbols and the Snellen E chart was 0.0045 (p=0.805; 95% confidence interval [95% CI]), whereas the difference between LEA symbols and Snellen E was 0.0883 (p<0.001; 95% CI).
CONCLUSIONS: Cloudscaper symbols provide a reliable tool for visual screening in children. Although they slightly underestimate visual acuity compared to LEA symbols – a finding also reported when comparing ETDRS letters with LEA symbols – Cloudscaper symbols show strong agreement with Snellen E chart measurements. This suggests that Cloudscaper symbols allow precise visual acuity assessment comparable to the gold standard.

Keywords: Vision screening; Vision tests; Visual acuity; Mobile applications; Eye health; Child health; Diagnostic techniques, Ophthalmological; Child; Preschool child; Adolescent