Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
addClaim

Ethnic differences in macular thickness.

Authors: Yasser M, Tariq; Haitao, Li; George, Burlutsky; Paul, Mitchell;

Ethnic differences in macular thickness.

Abstract

To determine ethnic differences in time-domain (Stratus) optical coherence tomography-measured macular thickness in 12-year-old children.Population-based cross-sectional study.A total of 2367 children from grade 7 (mean age 12.7 ± 0.45 years) examined during the Sydney Myopia Study during 2004-2005.Examination included determination of best corrected visual acuity. Autorefraction was performed after cycloplegia. Axial length was measured using non-contact interferometry and OCT was performed using Stratus OCT. Ethnicity was self reported by participants' parents.Macular thickness.The four largest ethnic groups were Caucasian (n = 1224), East Asian (n = 291), South Asian (n = 107) and Middle Eastern (n = 146). The greatest ethnic differences were found at the central macula, which was significantly thicker in Caucasian compared with East Asian, South Asian and Middle Eastern children (mean differences 9.0 µm, 12.1 µm and 6.5 µm, respectively; all P < 0.0001). The average inner macula was significantly thicker in Caucasian than East Asian and South Asian children (P = 0.005 and P < 0.0001, respectively). The average outer macula was significantly thicker in Caucasian than Middle Eastern and South Asian children (P = 0.03 and P < 0.0001, respectively).Macular parameters were found to vary by ethnicity in 12-year-old children. Caucasian children had the thickest macular parameters and South Asian children had the thinnest. The greatest differences were found in the central macula.

Related Organizations
Keywords

Male, Asia, Adolescent, Anatomy, Cross-Sectional, Visual Acuity, Refraction, Ocular, White People, Middle East, Cross-Sectional Studies, Ethnicity, Humans, Female, Macula Lutea, New South Wales, Child, Tomography, Optical Coherence

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    20
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Top 10%
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
20
Top 10%
Top 10%
Average
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!