IMI – Defining and Classifying Myopia: A Proposed Set of Standards for Clinical and Epidemiologic Studies

By D. Flitcroft, M. He, J. Jonas, M. Jong, K. Naidoo, K. Ohno-Matsui, J. Rahi, S. Resnikoff, S. Vitale, L. Yannuzzi. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science, 2019

986 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Purpose We provide a standardized set of terminology, definitions, and thresholds of myopia and its main ocular complications. Methods Critical review of current terminology and choice of myopia thresholds was done to ensure that the proposed standards are appropriate for clinical research purposes, relevant to the underlying biology of myopia, acceptable to researchers in the field, and useful for developing health policy. Results We recommend that the many descriptive terms of myopia be consolidated into the following descriptive categories: myopia, secondary myopia, axial myopia, and refractive myopia. To provide a framework for research into myopia prevention, the condition of “pre-myopia” is defined. As a quantitative trait, we recommend that myopia be divided into myopia (i.e., all myopia), low myopia, and high myopia. The current consensus threshold value for myopia is a spherical equivalent refractive error ≤ −0.50 diopters (D), but this carries significant risks of classification bias. The current consensus threshold value for high myopia is a spherical equivalent refractive error ≤ −6.00 D. “Pathologic myopia” is proposed as the categorical term for the adverse, structural complications of myopia. A clinical classification is proposed to encompass the scope of such structural complications. Conclusions Standardized definitions and consistent choice of thresholds are essential elements of evidence-based medicine. It is hoped that these proposals, or derivations from them, will facilitate rigorous, evidence-based approaches to the study and management of myopia.

Subfields: Epidemiology, Pathology and Forensic Medicine, Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/33ed19e1c487a27481599af342fb3ff554d2a261

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Epidemiology

1. Caroline C. W. Klaver
2. V. Verhoeven
3. J. Tideman
4. Clair A. Enthoven
5. A. Haarman
6. M. Tedja

Citations in the corpus

• The Complications of Myopia: A Review and Meta-Analysis (2020, methodology): “We strived to use the recently defined guidelines by the International Myopia Institute to optimize uniformity between studies, but sometimes had to apply best clinical judgement if this was not possible.(20) Our decisions may have affected the results.”