Association of birth weight with corneal power in early adolescence: Results from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 1999–2008

Achim Fieß; Alexander K. Schuster; Norbert Pfeiffer; Stefan Nickels

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0186723

Abstract

Purpose

To analyze the effect of birth weight on ocular morphology, refraction and visual function in early adolescents aged 12–15 years.

Material and methods

We conducted a secondary data analysis using the public use files from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey of the period from 1999 to 2008. Study participants aged 12 to 15 years were included with data on birth weight and ophthalmic parameters including presenting distance visual acuity, objective refraction and keratometry. Visual acuity, sphere, astigmatism in power vectors J₀ and J₄₅, corneal power and corneal astigmatism were evaluated for an association with birth weight. Linear and logistic regression with adjustment for age, sex, ethnicity, survey cycle and birth weight as independent variable were calculated.

Results

Linear regression analysis revealed an association between corneal power and birth weight (per 100g: beta = -0.04, p<0.001) in the univariate analysis, and in the model adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity and NHANES survey cycle (per 100g: beta = -0.04, p<0.001). A lower birth weight was associated with higher corneal power. We found no evidence for an association of visual acuity, sphere, spherical equivalent, J₀-vector and J₄₅-vector of astigmatism, corneal J₀- or corneal J₄₅-vector with birth weight.

Conclusion

Our data demonstrate that low BW is linked to alterations in keratometric power even in early adolescents aged 12–15 years whereas visual acuity and refractive error showed no association.

Citation: Fieß A, Schuster AK, Pfeiffer N, Nickels S (2017) Association of birth weight with corneal power in early adolescence: Results from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 1999–2008. PLoS ONE 12(10): e0186723. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0186723

Editor: Wei Li, Xiamen University, CHINA

Received: June 28, 2017; Accepted: October 8, 2017; Published: October 26, 2017

Copyright: © 2017 Fieß et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: Analyses are based on the NHANES public use files, available without restrictions on https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/continuousnhanes/default.aspx. To allow for replication of our analyses, we provide the source code on github (https://github.com/snickels/nhanes_bw_vf).

Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

In recent years, newborns with low birth weight have increased chances to survive. Especially low birth weight is an important parameter indicating prenatal growth restriction. Furthermore, it is assumed that growth restriction during organ development can affect organ morphology and functioning including ocular development and morphology in childhood. For former preterm and/or very low birth weight infants have an increased risk described for reduced visual acuity,[1] higher refractive error,[2] higher astigmatisms,[3] steeper corneal radius,[4] shallower anterior chamber, thicker lens,[5] shorter axial length [4, 6] and altered retinal morphology [7, 8].

Nevertheless, existing data mainly relies on examinations in early infancy. It is less clear whether altered ocular morphology in low birth weight infants lasts until adolescents or even until adulthood. Some authors hypothesized that differences in ocular morphology diminish between former preterm low birth weight infants and former full term neonates in the first seven years of life.[4]

In addition, former analyses were mainly based on case-control studies or hospital-based studies including infants with extremely low birth weight and controls. It is unclear whether these findings can be generalized to the general population. Consequently, it is of clinical importance to clarify and quantify the influence of this maturity parameter on ocular outcome in a population-based investigation to targeted clinical follow up beyond infancy.

Therefore, the purpose of this investigation was to analyze the long-term effects of low birth weight on visual acuity and ocular morphology in early teenage (12–15 years). Our hypothesis was that we would confirm previous findings in a population-based setup, namely an association between low birth weight and lower visual acuity, higher refractive error, higher astigmatism and higher corneal power even in early teenage.

Materials and methods

The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) is a representative survey research program to assess the health and nutritional status of adults and children in the United States of America (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/index.htm, last accessed 2017-05-10). Since 1999, data is collected continuously in two-year periods. Approximately 5000 persons from 15 areas are examined annually. Data is collected via questionnaire-based personal interviews at the participant’s home and a subsequent visit of a mobile examination center (MEC). From 1999 to 2008, NHANES included questions about birth weight as well as an ophthalmic examination. Our analyses are based on the NHANES public use files of these survey cycles (https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/continuousnhanes/default.aspx, last accessed 2017-05-10).

Birth weight

Birth weight was collected via the NHANES Early Childhood Questionnaire (ECQ) which surveyed participants up to 15 years of age and asked their responsible adult for health-related data including birth weight in pounds and ounces.

Ophthalmic data

During the subsequent visit at the mobile examination center, participants aged 12 years or older were asked to participate in an examination of visual function. Presenting distance visual acuity, objective refraction and corneal radius (flat meridian, steep meridian, axis of meridians) were examined using an autorefractor/keratometer (Nidek ARK-760A, Nidek Co. Ltd., Tokyo, Japan) in non-cycloplegic state and taking the average of three measurements. Corneal radius was converted into corneal power using the keratometer index of r = 1.3375. Presenting distance visual acuity was tested in both eyes. This examination was conducted with participants’s own spectacle correction, if available. Objective refraction (sphere, cylinder, axis) and keratometry data (corneal power averaged across the two meridians, difference in corneal power between meridians, axis of the steepest meridian) were obtained in a non-cycloplegic state by taking the average of three measurements.

To be able to analyze the association between birth weight and ophthalmic parameters, we included study participants aged 12 to 15 years who had had both, data on birth weight and an ophthalmic examination.

Demographic data

Age and sex were reported by parents, as was ethnicity. Ethnicity was provided in the categories Mexican American, other Hispanic, Non-Hispanic white, Non-Hispanic black, and other.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria of the analysis were missing proxy-reported birth weight information or a lack of data of the ophthalmic examination. Furthermore, we excluded all negative measurements of corneal power and extreme values of corneal power above 10 diopters.

Statistical analysis

We calculated birth weight in the metric system (grams) from the reported weight at birth in pounds and ounces and categorized the participants in born with low birth weight (<2500 g), high birth weight (>4100 g), and normal birth weight, as specified in the questionnaire. We only included right eyes in our analysis. Spherical equivalent (SE) was calculated as sphere value plus half the cylindrical power. For visual acuity, we transformed the Snellen equivalent to LogMAR.[9] The category “20/200+” was set to 1.1 LogMAR. All variables were checked for outliers.

Following the approach of Thibos,[10] who applied Fourier analysis to characterize astigmatism components, we calculated the vectors J₀ and J₄₅ for both refractive and corneal astigmatism as follows: J₀ = —C/2 * cos (2α) and J₄₅ = —C/2 * sin (2α); α is the cylindrical axis, and C is the cylinder power. J₀ represents the power vector matching the cylinder power of the vertical (90°) and horizontal (180°) meridians. Positive values correspond to with-the-rule astigmatism, negative values correspond to against-the-rule astigmatism. J₄₅ is the power vector corresponding to the cylinder power of the oblique meridians (45° and 135°).

We used mean and standard deviation to describe the distribution of continuous variables which showed an approximately normal distribution. Absolute and relative frequencies were used to describe categorical variables.

For continuous variables of interest, we used weighted linear regression models, and for categorical data we conducted weighted logistic regression analyses.

As univariate analysis, one model was built for each of the following outcome variable (visual acuity, sphere, spherical equivalent, J₀-vector and J₄₅-vector of astigmatism, corneal power, corneal J₀- and corneal J₄₅-vector) with birth weight as independent variable. Multivariable regression models included age, sex, ethnicity and NHANES survey cycle. For visual acuity, we additionally adjusted for wearing distance glasses or contact lenses.

To account for the complex survey design, we followed the advice of the NHANES analytical guidelines and used combined sample weights for the analyses.[11] The variance estimation used Taylor Series Linearization based on the primary sampling units and strata. We repeated the analysis of refraction outcomes restricted to myopic participants (defined by SE < -0.5 diopters). Furthermore, we repeated the analyses based on categorized birth weight with an additional category for very low birth weight (<1500 g). We used R version 3.3.0 with Rstudio version 1.0.136 and the packages nhanesA (version 0.6.4.3.3), ggplot2 (version 2.1.0), survey (version 3.31–5), knitr (version 1.15.1), and table one (version 0.7.3). P-values should be regarded as a continuous measure of evidence and should be interpreted with care, given the exploratory character of this analysis. To allow for replication of our analyses, we provide the source code on github (https://github.com/snickels/nhanes_bw_vf).

Results

Sample description

We included 4801 NHANES participants of the survey cycles 1999–2008 with available information on birth weight and an ophthalmic examination. For corneal power we excluded negative values (n = 48) and extreme values above 10 diopters (n = 5), as they are highly suspected to be measurement or data entry errors.

Age at examination of the study sample was 13.98 +/- 1.16 years and 51% were female. 34% were Mexican Americans, 5% other Hispanics, 27% non-Hispanic Whites and 31% non-Hispanics Blacks, 4% had another ethnicity. The mean birth weight was 3298 +/- 654 g, 461 (10%) persons had a birth weight below 2500g and 400 (8%) persons had a birth weight over 4100g. Data of general and ocular parameters with stratification on birth weight are reported in Table 1.

Download:

Table 1. Characteristics of NHANES 1999–2008 sample with both birth weight and ophthalmic data available.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0186723.t001

Regression results

Linear regression analysis revealed an association between corneal power and birth weight (per 100g: beta = -0.04, p<0.001) in the univariate analysis (Fig 1), and in the model adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity and NHANES examination cycle (per 100g: beta = -0.04, p<0.001). A lower birth weight was associated to higher corneal power. We repeated the analysis restricted to the normal birth weight group (per 100g: beta = -0.04, p<0.001, both crude and adjusted models). Visual acuity, sphere, spherical equivalent, J₀-vector and J₄₅-vector of astigmatism, corneal J₀- and corneal J₄₅-vector were not associated to birth weight in the respective models (Table 2).

Download:

Fig 1. The association of corneal power (right eyes) with birth weight in the NHANES 1999–2008.

Legend: Split by survey cycles. Red dashed lines represent the birth weight category boundaries (2500g, 4100g) used in the categorical regression. Blue lines represent regression lines with grey 95% confidence limits.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0186723.g001

Download:

Table 2. The association of birth weight (continuous) with visual acuity, refraction and keratometry in separate models in the NHANES 1999–2008.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0186723.t002

With respect to birth weight groups, a 0.70 diopters higher corneal power was associated to birth weight below 2500g compared to normal birth weight (2500-4100g) in the multivariable linear regression model (p<0.001; Fig 2). A birth weight above 4100g was associated a -0.24 diopters lower corneal power compared to normal birth weight (Table 3). No other outcome parameter was associated to low birth weight, while corneal J₀-vector showed an association to high birth weight in the multivariable regression model.

Download:

Fig 2. Corneal power (right eyes) by birth weight categories in the NHANES 1999–2008.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0186723.g002

Download:

Table 3. The association of self-reported birth weight (categorical) with visual acuity, refraction and keratometry in the NHANES 1999–2008.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0186723.t003

The sensitivity analysis including only myopic subjects revealed similar results. Sphere, spherical equivalent, and J₄₅-vector of astigmatism were not linked to birth weight, while J₀-vector of astigmatism was associated (S1 and S2 Tables).

Discussion

Our analysis provides data of ocular long term outcome in early adolescents aged 12 to 15 years with respect to their birth weight in a population based setting. It indicates that low birth weight affects corneal configuration even after the first 10 years of life as corneal power is higher in adolescents having had low birth weight. Furthermore, we analysed the impact of birth weight and visual acuity respective refractive error in early adolescents.

Visual acuity

In contrast to previous reports analyzing children up to late infancy we did not find an association of birth weight with visual acuity. Haugen et al. [12] reported for infants aged 6 to 7 years in a population-based study with former preterm low birth weight infants (gestational age of 22–27 completed weeks or birth weight of 500–999 g) that 46% of participants had subnormal visual acuity of > = 0.1 logMAR. This is in congruence to a study with older children aged up to 10 years. 25% of these study participants with a birth weight ≤ 1500 g had a low visual function, defined as visual acuity > = 0.1 logMAR and/or strabismus and/or subnormal contrast sensitivity.[1] Furthermore, O'Connor et al. [13] compared older children at an age of 10 to 12 years with a birth weight below 1701 g compared to full term children. This study detected a slightly lower visual acuity and contrast sensitivity in children with a low birth weight. In accordance with these results Molloy et al.[14] reported for adolescents (age between 14 and 20 years) with extreme low birth weight (<1000g) or former extreme preterm infants (gestational age < 28 weeks) worse visual acuity, poorer stereopsis and convergence compared to a control group with normal birth weight (>2499g). In contrast to our study, these studies recruited far more study participants with extreme low birth weight, than did our approach investigating this relationship in a population-based study design with only 0.6% (n = 29) subjects with a birth weight below 1000g. Accordingly, our results reflect the continuum of birth weights in a population, while extreme prematurity may show different results.

Sphere and spherical equivalent

Contrary to previous reports, we found no evidence for an association of low birth weight with increased refractive error. Several reports exist demonstrating a strong association between low birth weight and increased myopic refractive error in early childhood [2, 4, 6, 15, 16]. In a study of extremely preterm infants with GA<27 weeks aged of 2.5 years, about 26% of the children had myopia with less than -3 diopters, hypermetropia greater than +3 diopter, astigmatismus of 2 and more diopter, and/or anisometropia of 2 and more diopter.[16] Overall, for the first decade of life O'Connor et al.[15] observed in a cohort of 293 low birth weight infants (<1701 g) a relatively stable refractive error with a shift of 1 diopter towards myopia. In addition, in a recent study the authors reported that differences of spherical equivalent decreased between preterm (GA<33 weeks) and full term infants when they reached 8 years of life.[4] In accordance with this decline, our analysis did not find an association between birth weight with refractive error in early adolescence (age 12–15 years). This finding could implicate that birth weight has an impact on organ development, but with some delay during childhood refractive error normalizes.

Astigmatism

In our analysis no association was found between low birth weight and astigmatism. In a Swedish study of infants aged 6 months 18% of former extreme low birth weight infants (≤ 1500g) had an astigmatism of at least 2 diopters.[17] Additionally, Larsson et al. reported that astigmatism declined in a cohort of 198 preterm infants between 6 months and 2.5 years, and afterwards remained stable when analyzed up to 10 years of age.[18] Similarly, other authors reported that the difference between preterm low birth weight infants and full term infants for astigmatism diminishes until 8 to 10 years of age.[4] Our results are in accordance with these studies indicating that astigmatism is not affected by birth weight beyond the age of 10 years.

Corneal power

In our analysis we found an association between higher corneal power and low birth weight in in early adolescents aged 12 to 15 years. In former preterm and low birth weight infants a smaller corneal radius was observed compared to full term infants from birth up to early childhood.[4, 19, 20] Donzis et al.[21] reported that corneal curvature flattens within 3 months after birth. Other authors hypothesized that a steeper cornea gradually diminishes during infancy.[22, 23] In a previous report, some authors hypothesized that differences between higher intrauterine and lower extrauterine temperature before and after preterm birth may be reasons for a postnatal less flattening of corneal morphology.[24] In accordance with these results, we found an association between low birth weight and higher corneal power, which is inversely related to corneal curvature. This association of corneal power with birth weight was still present after adjustment for several factors, namely sex, age, ethnicity, and NHANES examination cycle.

Other corneal properties, such as central corneal thickness seem to be linked to birth weight as well. Some authors reported thicker central corneal thickness in preterm newborns in comparison to full term newborns.[19, 25] Others reported that the difference of central corneal thickness diminishes in preterm newborns step by step until they reach full term age.[26, 27] Two studies analyzed corneal properties in late infancy using Scheimpflug imaging and reported no difference in central corneal thickness comparing former preterm and low birth weight infants to full term infants.[4, 28] As central corneal thickness is not examined within the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, our analysis cannot contribute to this aspect.

Strengths and limitations

The strength of the NHANES study lies in the standardized population-based study design and the large sample size. Furthermore, the adjustment for different covariates contributes to precise estimates. Several studies detected a high reliability of mother reported birth weight as proxy-reported birth weight parameter.[29–32] Because gestational age was not recorded in this investigation, our analysis could not incorporate if infant’s birth weight was small, appropriate, or large in correlation with gestational age. Furthermore, the fact that cycloplegic measurements were not performed within the comprehensive NHANES examination could also diminish potential differences between study groups. Accommodation may have affected the results for refractive error particularly in the young teenager age. As a consequence hyperopic refractive error might have been underestimated and myopic refractive error overestimated. This has to be considered when interpreting our results. To lower risk of bias, we performed a sensitivity analysis within the myopic study participants and did find similar associations as for the total study cohort. Another limitation of the present study was the small number of participants with very low birth weight (<1500g) which could also diminish possible differences. However, we repeated the analysis of associations with categorized birth weight with an additional category for very low birth weight (<1500 g) and found similar results.

Conclusion

Overall, this study presents the results of a population-based study of early adolescents aged 12 to 15 years and reports the relationship between birth weight and visual acuity, refractive error, astigmatism, and corneal power. Our results highlight that low birth weight has an impact on corneal configuration even after the first decade of life. Namely corneal power is higher in early adolescents with low birth weight. Due to the inverse correlation between corneal power and corneal curvature this study underlines that low birth weight seems to lead to a less flattening of corneal curvature which persist until early adolescence. Furthermore, the lack of association between birth weight and visual acuity and refractive error could indicate these effects may be limited to infancy and childhood and are not present in early adolescence anymore in a population-based approach.

Supporting information

S1 Table. The association of self-reported birth weight (categorical) with visual acuity, refraction and keratometry in the NHANES 1999–2008, restricted to myopic participants (n = 1553).

Legend: Results from the multivariable linear regression models adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity and NHANES examination cycle. Reference was the normal birth weight group (> = 2500 g—< = 4100g). Myopia was defined as spherical equivalent below -0.5 dioptres.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0186723.s001

(DOCX)

S2 Table. The association of birth weight (continuous) with visual function, refraction and keratometry in the NHANES 1999–2008, restricted to myopic participants (n = 1553).

Legend: Results from the multivariable linear regression models adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity and NHANES examination cycle. Myopia was defined as spherical equivalent below -0.5 dioptres.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0186723.s002

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

We are very much obliged to all participants of NHANES and to all members of the NHANES team for planning and conducting the study. We would like to thank Anthony Damico for his very helpful webpages about the analysis of available survey data using R (http://www.asdfree.com, https://github.com/ajdamico/asdfree).

References

1. Holmstrom G, Larsson E. Long-term follow-up of visual functions in prematurely born children—a prospective population-based study up to 10 years of age. J AAPOS. 2008;12(2):157–62. pmid:18083590
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
2. Holmstrom GE, Larsson EK. Development of spherical equivalent refraction in prematurely born children during the first 10 years of life: a population-based study. Arch Ophthalmol. 2005;123(10):1404–11. pmid:16219732
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
3. Davitt BV, Dobson V, Quinn GE, Hardy RJ, Tung B, Good WV, et al. Astigmatism in the Early Treatment for Retinopathy Of Prematurity Study: findings to 3 years of age. Ophthalmology. 2009;116(2):332–9. pmid:19091409
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
4. Fieß A, Kolb-Keerl R, Knuf M, Kirchhof B, Blecha C, Oberacher-Velten I, et al. Axial Length and Anterior Segment Alterations in Former Preterm Infants and Full-Term Neonates Analyzed With Scheimpflug Imaging. Cornea. 2017.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
5. Wu WC, Lin RI, Shih CP, Wang NK, Chen YP, Chao AN, et al. Visual acuity, optical components, and macular abnormalities in patients with a history of retinopathy of prematurity. Ophthalmology. 2012;119(9):1907–16. pmid:22578258
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
6. Cook A, White S, Batterbury M, Clark D. Ocular growth and refractive error development in premature infants without retinopathy of prematurity. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003;44(3):953–60. pmid:12601014
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
7. Fieß A, Christian L, Janz J, Kolb-Keerl R, Knuf M, Kirchhof B, et al. Functional analysis and associated factors of the peripapillary retinal nerve fibre layer in former preterm and full-term infants. Br J Ophthalmol. 2017.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
8. Fieß A, Janz J, Schuster AK, Kolb-Keerl R, Knuf M, Kirchhof B, et al. Macular morphology in former preterm and full-term infants aged 4 to 10 years. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2017.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
9. Holladay JT. Proper method for calculating average visual acuity. J Refract Surg. 1997;13(4):388–91. pmid:9268940
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
10. Thibos LN, Wheeler W, Horner D. Power vectors: an application of Fourier analysis to the description and statistical analysis of refractive error. Optom Vis Sci. 1997;74(6):367–75. pmid:9255814
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
11. Johnson CL, Paulose-Ram R, Ogden CL, Carroll MD, Kruszon-Moran D, Dohrmann SM, et al. National health and nutrition examination survey: analytic guidelines, 1999–2010. Vital Health Stat 2. 2013(161):1–24. pmid:25090154
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
12. Haugen OH, Nepstad L, Standal OA, Elgen I, Markestad T. Visual function in 6 to 7 year-old children born extremely preterm: a population-based study. Acta Ophthalmol. 2012;90(5):422–7. pmid:21044277
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
13. O'Connor AR, Stephenson TJ, Johnson A, Tobin MJ, Ratib S, Moseley M, et al. Visual function in low birthweight children. Br J Ophthalmol. 2004;88(9):1149–53. pmid:15317706
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
14. Molloy CS, Wilson-Ching M, Anderson VA, Roberts G, Anderson PJ, Doyle LW. Visual processing in adolescents born extremely low birth weight and/or extremely preterm. Pediatrics. 2013;132(3):e704–12. pmid:23918899
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
15. O'Connor AR, Stephenson TJ, Johnson A, Tobin MJ, Ratib S, Fielder AR. Change of refractive state and eye size in children of birth weight less than 1701 g. Br J Ophthalmol. 2006;90(4):456–60. pmid:16547327
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
16. Holmstrom GE, Kallen K, Hellstrom A, Jakobsson PG, Serenius F, Stjernqvist K, et al. Ophthalmologic outcome at 30 months' corrected age of a prospective Swedish cohort of children born before 27 weeks of gestation: the extremely preterm infants in sweden study. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2014;132(2):182–9. pmid:24310059
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
17. Holmstrom M, el Azazi M, Kugelberg U. Ophthalmological long-term follow up of preterm infants: a population based, prospective study of the refraction and its development. Br J Ophthalmol. 1998;82(11):1265–71. pmid:9924330
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
18. Larsson EK, Holmstrom GE. Development of astigmatism and anisometropia in preterm children during the first 10 years of life: a population-based study. Arch Ophthalmol. 2006;124(11):1608–14. pmid:17102009
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
19. Kirwan C, O'Keefe M, Fitzsimon S. Central corneal thickness and corneal diameter in premature infants. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2005;83(6):751–3. pmid:16396656
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
20. Saw SM, Tong L, Chia KS, Koh D, Lee YS, Katz J, et al. The relation between birth size and the results of refractive error and biometry measurements in children. Br J Ophthalmol. 2004;88(4):538–42. pmid:15031173
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
21. Donzis PB, Insler MS, Gordon RA. Corneal curvatures in premature infants. Am J Ophthalmol. 1985;99(2):213–5.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
22. Inagaki Y. The rapid change of corneal curvature in the neonatal period and infancy. Arch Ophthalmol. 1986;104(7):1026–7. pmid:3729771
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
23. Friling R, Weinberger D, Kremer I, Avisar R, Sirota L, Snir M. Keratometry measurements in preterm and full term newborn infants. Br J Ophthalmol. 2004;88(1):8–10. pmid:14693760
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
24. Fielder AR, Levene MI, Russell-Eggitt IM, Weale RA. Temperature—a factor in ocular development? Dev Med Child Neurol. 1986;28(3):279–84. pmid:3721069
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
25. Autzen T, Bjornstrom L. Central corneal thickness in premature babies. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh). 1991;69(2):251–2.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
26. al-Umran KU, Pandolfi MF. Corneal diameter in premature infants. Br J Ophthalmol. 1992;76(5):292–3. pmid:1390512
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
27. Portellinha W, Belfort R Jr. Central and peripheral corneal thickness in newborns. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh). 1991;69(2):247–50.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
28. Ecsedy M, Kovacs I, Mihaltz K, Recsan Z, Szigeti A, Juhasz E, et al. Scheimpflug imaging for long-term evaluation of optical components in Hungarian children with a history of preterm birth. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus. 2014;51(4):235–41. pmid:24877551
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
29. Tate AR, Dezateux C, Cole TJ, Davidson L. Factors affecting a mother's recall of her baby's birth weight. Int J Epidemiol. 2005;34(3):688–95. pmid:15737964
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
30. Catov JM, Newman AB, Kelsey SF, Roberts JM, Sutton-Tyrrell KC, Garcia M, et al. Accuracy and reliability of maternal recall of infant birth weight among older women. Ann Epidemiol. 2006;16(6):429–31. pmid:16280248
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
31. Lumey LH, Stein AD, Ravelli AC. Maternal recall of birthweights of adult children: validation by hospital and well baby clinic records. Int J Epidemiol. 1994;23(5):1006–12. pmid:7860151
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
32. Adegboye AR, Heitmann B. Accuracy and correlates of maternal recall of birthweight and gestational age. Bjog. 2008;115(7):886–93. pmid:18485168
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar

[ref1] 1. Holmstrom G, Larsson E. Long-term follow-up of visual functions in prematurely born children—a prospective population-based study up to 10 years of age. J AAPOS. 2008;12(2):157–62. pmid:18083590
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[2] View Article

[3] PubMed/NCBI

[4] Google Scholar

[ref2] 2. Holmstrom GE, Larsson EK. Development of spherical equivalent refraction in prematurely born children during the first 10 years of life: a population-based study. Arch Ophthalmol. 2005;123(10):1404–11. pmid:16219732
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[6] View Article

[7] PubMed/NCBI

[8] Google Scholar

[ref3] 3. Davitt BV, Dobson V, Quinn GE, Hardy RJ, Tung B, Good WV, et al. Astigmatism in the Early Treatment for Retinopathy Of Prematurity Study: findings to 3 years of age. Ophthalmology. 2009;116(2):332–9. pmid:19091409
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[10] View Article

[11] PubMed/NCBI

[12] Google Scholar

[ref4] 4. Fieß A, Kolb-Keerl R, Knuf M, Kirchhof B, Blecha C, Oberacher-Velten I, et al. Axial Length and Anterior Segment Alterations in Former Preterm Infants and Full-Term Neonates Analyzed With Scheimpflug Imaging. Cornea. 2017.
View Article
Google Scholar

[14] View Article

[15] Google Scholar

[ref5] 5. Wu WC, Lin RI, Shih CP, Wang NK, Chen YP, Chao AN, et al. Visual acuity, optical components, and macular abnormalities in patients with a history of retinopathy of prematurity. Ophthalmology. 2012;119(9):1907–16. pmid:22578258
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[17] View Article

[18] PubMed/NCBI

[19] Google Scholar

[ref6] 6. Cook A, White S, Batterbury M, Clark D. Ocular growth and refractive error development in premature infants without retinopathy of prematurity. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003;44(3):953–60. pmid:12601014
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[21] View Article

[22] PubMed/NCBI

[23] Google Scholar

[ref7] 7. Fieß A, Christian L, Janz J, Kolb-Keerl R, Knuf M, Kirchhof B, et al. Functional analysis and associated factors of the peripapillary retinal nerve fibre layer in former preterm and full-term infants. Br J Ophthalmol. 2017.
View Article
Google Scholar

[25] View Article

[26] Google Scholar

[ref8] 8. Fieß A, Janz J, Schuster AK, Kolb-Keerl R, Knuf M, Kirchhof B, et al. Macular morphology in former preterm and full-term infants aged 4 to 10 years. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2017.
View Article
Google Scholar

[28] View Article

[29] Google Scholar

[ref9] 9. Holladay JT. Proper method for calculating average visual acuity. J Refract Surg. 1997;13(4):388–91. pmid:9268940
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[31] View Article

[32] PubMed/NCBI

[33] Google Scholar

[ref10] 10. Thibos LN, Wheeler W, Horner D. Power vectors: an application of Fourier analysis to the description and statistical analysis of refractive error. Optom Vis Sci. 1997;74(6):367–75. pmid:9255814
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[35] View Article

[36] PubMed/NCBI

[37] Google Scholar

[ref11] 11. Johnson CL, Paulose-Ram R, Ogden CL, Carroll MD, Kruszon-Moran D, Dohrmann SM, et al. National health and nutrition examination survey: analytic guidelines, 1999–2010. Vital Health Stat 2. 2013(161):1–24. pmid:25090154
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[39] View Article

[40] PubMed/NCBI

[41] Google Scholar

[ref12] 12. Haugen OH, Nepstad L, Standal OA, Elgen I, Markestad T. Visual function in 6 to 7 year-old children born extremely preterm: a population-based study. Acta Ophthalmol. 2012;90(5):422–7. pmid:21044277
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[43] View Article

[44] PubMed/NCBI

[45] Google Scholar

[ref13] 13. O'Connor AR, Stephenson TJ, Johnson A, Tobin MJ, Ratib S, Moseley M, et al. Visual function in low birthweight children. Br J Ophthalmol. 2004;88(9):1149–53. pmid:15317706
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[47] View Article

[48] PubMed/NCBI

[49] Google Scholar

[ref14] 14. Molloy CS, Wilson-Ching M, Anderson VA, Roberts G, Anderson PJ, Doyle LW. Visual processing in adolescents born extremely low birth weight and/or extremely preterm. Pediatrics. 2013;132(3):e704–12. pmid:23918899
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[51] View Article

[52] PubMed/NCBI

[53] Google Scholar

[ref15] 15. O'Connor AR, Stephenson TJ, Johnson A, Tobin MJ, Ratib S, Fielder AR. Change of refractive state and eye size in children of birth weight less than 1701 g. Br J Ophthalmol. 2006;90(4):456–60. pmid:16547327
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[55] View Article

[56] PubMed/NCBI

[57] Google Scholar

[ref16] 16. Holmstrom GE, Kallen K, Hellstrom A, Jakobsson PG, Serenius F, Stjernqvist K, et al. Ophthalmologic outcome at 30 months' corrected age of a prospective Swedish cohort of children born before 27 weeks of gestation: the extremely preterm infants in sweden study. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2014;132(2):182–9. pmid:24310059
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[59] View Article

[60] PubMed/NCBI

[61] Google Scholar

[ref17] 17. Holmstrom M, el Azazi M, Kugelberg U. Ophthalmological long-term follow up of preterm infants: a population based, prospective study of the refraction and its development. Br J Ophthalmol. 1998;82(11):1265–71. pmid:9924330
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[63] View Article

[64] PubMed/NCBI

[65] Google Scholar

[ref18] 18. Larsson EK, Holmstrom GE. Development of astigmatism and anisometropia in preterm children during the first 10 years of life: a population-based study. Arch Ophthalmol. 2006;124(11):1608–14. pmid:17102009
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[67] View Article

[68] PubMed/NCBI

[69] Google Scholar

[ref19] 19. Kirwan C, O'Keefe M, Fitzsimon S. Central corneal thickness and corneal diameter in premature infants. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2005;83(6):751–3. pmid:16396656
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[71] View Article

[72] PubMed/NCBI

[73] Google Scholar

[ref20] 20. Saw SM, Tong L, Chia KS, Koh D, Lee YS, Katz J, et al. The relation between birth size and the results of refractive error and biometry measurements in children. Br J Ophthalmol. 2004;88(4):538–42. pmid:15031173
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[75] View Article

[76] PubMed/NCBI

[77] Google Scholar

[ref21] 21. Donzis PB, Insler MS, Gordon RA. Corneal curvatures in premature infants. Am J Ophthalmol. 1985;99(2):213–5.
View Article
Google Scholar

[79] View Article

[80] Google Scholar

[ref22] 22. Inagaki Y. The rapid change of corneal curvature in the neonatal period and infancy. Arch Ophthalmol. 1986;104(7):1026–7. pmid:3729771
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[82] View Article

[83] PubMed/NCBI

[84] Google Scholar

[ref23] 23. Friling R, Weinberger D, Kremer I, Avisar R, Sirota L, Snir M. Keratometry measurements in preterm and full term newborn infants. Br J Ophthalmol. 2004;88(1):8–10. pmid:14693760
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[86] View Article

[87] PubMed/NCBI

[88] Google Scholar

[ref24] 24. Fielder AR, Levene MI, Russell-Eggitt IM, Weale RA. Temperature—a factor in ocular development? Dev Med Child Neurol. 1986;28(3):279–84. pmid:3721069
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[90] View Article

[91] PubMed/NCBI

[92] Google Scholar

[ref25] 25. Autzen T, Bjornstrom L. Central corneal thickness in premature babies. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh). 1991;69(2):251–2.
View Article
Google Scholar

[94] View Article

[95] Google Scholar

[ref26] 26. al-Umran KU, Pandolfi MF. Corneal diameter in premature infants. Br J Ophthalmol. 1992;76(5):292–3. pmid:1390512
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[97] View Article

[98] PubMed/NCBI

[99] Google Scholar

[ref27] 27. Portellinha W, Belfort R Jr. Central and peripheral corneal thickness in newborns. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh). 1991;69(2):247–50.
View Article
Google Scholar

[101] View Article

[102] Google Scholar

[ref28] 28. Ecsedy M, Kovacs I, Mihaltz K, Recsan Z, Szigeti A, Juhasz E, et al. Scheimpflug imaging for long-term evaluation of optical components in Hungarian children with a history of preterm birth. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus. 2014;51(4):235–41. pmid:24877551
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[104] View Article

[105] PubMed/NCBI

[106] Google Scholar

[ref29] 29. Tate AR, Dezateux C, Cole TJ, Davidson L. Factors affecting a mother's recall of her baby's birth weight. Int J Epidemiol. 2005;34(3):688–95. pmid:15737964
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[108] View Article

[109] PubMed/NCBI

[110] Google Scholar

[ref30] 30. Catov JM, Newman AB, Kelsey SF, Roberts JM, Sutton-Tyrrell KC, Garcia M, et al. Accuracy and reliability of maternal recall of infant birth weight among older women. Ann Epidemiol. 2006;16(6):429–31. pmid:16280248
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[112] View Article

[113] PubMed/NCBI

[114] Google Scholar

[ref31] 31. Lumey LH, Stein AD, Ravelli AC. Maternal recall of birthweights of adult children: validation by hospital and well baby clinic records. Int J Epidemiol. 1994;23(5):1006–12. pmid:7860151
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[116] View Article

[117] PubMed/NCBI

[118] Google Scholar

[ref32] 32. Adegboye AR, Heitmann B. Accuracy and correlates of maternal recall of birthweight and gestational age. Bjog. 2008;115(7):886–93. pmid:18485168
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[120] View Article

[121] PubMed/NCBI

[122] Google Scholar

Association of birth weight with corneal power in early adolescence: Results from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 1999–2008

Association of birth weight with corneal power in early adolescence: Results from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 1999–2008

Correction

Figures

Abstract

Purpose

Material and methods

Results

Conclusion

Introduction

Materials and methods

Birth weight

Ophthalmic data

Demographic data

Exclusion criteria

Statistical analysis

Results

Sample description

Regression results

Discussion

Visual acuity

Sphere and spherical equivalent

Astigmatism

Corneal power

Strengths and limitations

Conclusion

Supporting information

S1 Table. The association of self-reported birth weight (categorical) with visual acuity, refraction and keratometry in the NHANES 1999–2008, restricted to myopic participants (n = 1553).

S2 Table. The association of birth weight (continuous) with visual function, refraction and keratometry in the NHANES 1999–2008, restricted to myopic participants (n = 1553).

Acknowledgments

References