INTRODUCTIONThis study aimed to investigate secular trends in the prevalence of myopia over 6 decades (from the 1920s to 1980s) in Chinese adults in Singapore.

MATERIALS AND METHODSParental myopia prevalence was estimated using a parent-completed questionnaire in paediatric cohorts that included: 1) The Singapore Cohort Of Risk factors for Myopia (SCORM), 2) The Strabismus, Amblyopia and Refractive Error in Singaporean Children (STARS), and 3) The Growing Up in Singapore Towards healthy Outcomes (GUSTO). Published estimates for myopia prevalence from 5 adult studies in Singapore were reviewed. Secular trends in the prevalence of myopia were correlated with changes in the education system.

RESULTSThe prevalence of parental myopia in SCORM (n = 2943), STARS (n = 4938), and GUSTO (n = 1072) was 47.8%, 53.4%, and 73.4%, respectively; corresponding calendar years these parents might have started schooling were 1966, 1973, and 1983 (born in 1960, 1967, and 1977), respectively. Mean age of parents was 41.3, 40.1, and 33.4 years, respectively. Prevalence of myopia in adult studies in persons who started elementary school in 1928, 1934, 1938, 1939, 1942, 1948, 1952, 1958, 1962, 1972, 1982, and 1995 were 36.4%, 39.7%, 30.0%, 31.5%, 33.0%, 26.4%, 32.5%, 48.7%, 39.4%, 52.0%, 82.2%, and 85.9%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONDuring the past few decades, the prevalence of myopia increased rapidly, especially in persons who started elementary school after the 1980s (born after 1970). The education system was expanded after Singapore's independence in 1965, and the new education system was introduced in 1978. These changes, together with increasing intensive schooling, may have contributed to the increase in myopia prevalence.

INTRODUCTIONWe compared the agreement of diabetic retinopathy (DR) assessment between trained non-physician graders (NPGs) and family physicians (FPs) in a primary healthcare setting.

METHODSThis was a cross-sectional study conducted retrospectively over a period of one month. The participants were diabetic patients from two primary healthcare clinics (polyclinics) in Singapore. Single-field digital retinal images were obtained using a non-mydriatic 45-degree fundus camera. Retinal images were graded for the presence or absence of DR by FPs at the polyclinics and by NPGs at a central ocular grading centre. The FPs' and NPGs' assessments of DR were compared with readings by a single retinal specialist (reference standard).

RESULTSA total of 367 diabetic patients (706 eyes) were included in the study. The mean age of the patients was 63 years, and the majority were Chinese (83.8%). For DR assessment, the agreement between NPGs and the retinal specialist was substantial (ĸ = 0.66), while the agreement between FPs and the retinal specialist was only fair (ĸ = 0.40). NPGs' assessment showed higher sensitivity (70% vs. 45%) and comparable specificity (94% vs. 92%) as compared to FPs' assessment. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of NPGs' assessment of DR was greater than that of the FPs' (0.82 vs. 0.69, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONThis study has demonstrated that trained NPGs are able to provide good detection of DR and maculopathy from fundus photographs. Our findings suggest that DR screening by trained NPGs may provide a costeffective alternative to FPs.

Aged ; Cross-Sectional Studies ; Diabetic Retinopathy ; diagnosis ; Female ; Humans ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Mydriatics ; Nurses ; Observer Variation ; Ophthalmology ; manpower ; Physicians, Family ; Primary Health Care ; methods ; ROC Curve ; Referral and Consultation ; Reproducibility of Results ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Singapore