Background Visual acuity is known to be poorer in children with Down’s syndrome than in age‐matched controls. However, to date, clinicians do not have access to norms for children with Down’s syndrome that allow differential discrimination of healthy from anomalous visual development in this population. Methods The Down’s Syndrome Vision Research Unit at Cardiff University has been monitoring visual development in a large cohort of children since 1992. Cross‐sectional data on binocular visual acuity were retrospectively analysed for 159 children up to 12 years of age in order to establish binocular acuity norms. Longitudinal binocular acuity data were available for nine children who were seen regularly over the 12 years age‐range. Monocular acuity was successfully recorded less often in the cohort, but analysis of scores for 69 children allowed assessment of inter‐ocular acuity differences and binocular summation. Results In comparison with published norms for the various acuity tests used, binocular acuity was consistently poorer in children with Down’s syndrome from the age of three years and stabilised at around 0.25 logMAR from the age of four years. Inter‐ocular acuity difference and binocular summation were both 0.06 logMAR, which is similar to the reported values in children without Down’s syndrome. Conclusions The study provides eye‐care practitioners with the expected values for binocular acuity in children with Down’s syndrome and demonstrates the visual disadvantage that children with Down’s syndrome have when compared with their typically developing peers. The results emphasise the responsibility that practitioners have to notify parents and educators of the relatively poor vision of children with Down’s syndrome, and the need for classroom modifications.

There is currently no treatment for early/intermediate Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD) but Eye Care Professionals (ECPs) are recommended to advise patients about modifiable lifestyle factors, including dietary changes, that can slow disease progression. The aim of this review was to understand advice currently given to patients with AMD by ECPs and to evaluate evidence regarding patient compliance. A systematic review was conducted of literature published in electronic databases: CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PyscARTICLES, EMBASE, AMED. Methods followed PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020223724). Twenty-four reports were eligible for inclusion, 12 focused on ECP experience, 7 on patient experience, and 6 on impact of advice (one paper reported on the ECP and patient experience). Studies reported that a substantial proportion of patients did not recall receiving lifestyle modification advice from their ECP (57.95%, range 2–95% across patient based studies). Practitioners were most likely to provide advice about nutritional supplements (80%, range 67–93% across ECP studies), and least likely about smoking (44%, range 28–71% across ECP studies), however supplements advised did not always comply with evidence-based guidelines. The main reason for patients not following lifestyle advice was lack of provision by the ECP (54.5%, range 21–94% across studies on the impact of advice). The review highlighted a need for more studies to understand patient preferences for receiving advice and research on ECP perceived barriers to advice provision.

Two tests to measure fusional vergence amplitudes objectively were developed and validated against the two conventional clinical tests. Forty-nine adults participated in the study. Participants’ negative (BI, base in) and positive (BO, base out) fusional vergence amplitudes at near were measured objectively in an haploscopic set-up by recording eye movements with an EyeLink 1000 Plus (SR Research). Stimulus disparity changed in steps or smoothly mimicking a prim bar and a Risley prism, respectively. Break and recovery points were determined offline using a custom Matlab algorithm for the analysis of eye movements. Fusional vergence amplitudes were also measured with two clinical tests using a Risley prism and a prism bar. A better agreement between tests was found for the measurement of BI than for BO fusional vergence amplitudes. The means ± SD of the differences between the BI break and recovery points measured with the two objective tests were -1.74 ± 3.35 PD and -1.97 ± 2.60 PD, respectively, which were comparable to those obtained for the subjective tests. For the BO break and recovery points, although the means of the differences between the two objective tests were small, high variability between subjects was found (0.31 ± 6.44 PD and -2.84 ± 7.01 PD, respectively). This study showed the feasibility to measure fusional vergence amplitudes objectively and overcome limitations of the conventional subjective tests. However, these tests cannot be used interchangeably due to their poor agreement.

Eye movement control is impaired in some neurological conditions, but the impact of COVID-19 on eye movements remains unknown. This study aims to investigate differences in oculomotor function and pupil response in individuals who suffer post-COVID-19 condition (PCC) with cognitive deficits. Saccades, smooth pursuit, fixation, vergence and pupillary response were recorded using an eye tracker. Eye movements and pupil response parameters were computed. Data from 16 controls, 38 COVID mild (home recovery) and 19 COVID severe (hospital admission) participants were analyzed. Saccadic latencies were shorter in controls (183 ± 54 ms) than in COVID mild (236 ± 83 ms) and COVID severe (227 ± 42 ms) participants (p = 0.017). Fixation stability was poorer in COVID mild participants (Bivariate Contour Ellipse Area of 0.80 ± 1.61°² vs 0.36 ± 0.65 °² for controls, p = 0.019), while percentage of pupil area reduction/enlargement was reduced in COVID severe participants (39.7 ± 12.7%/31.6 ± 12.7% compared to 51.7 ± 22.0%/49.1 ± 20.7% in controls, p < 0.015). The characteristics of oculomotor alterations found in PCC may be useful to understand different pathophysiologic mechanisms.