4.6 Article

Parental smoking and childhood refractive error: the STARS study

Journal

EYE
Volume 26, Issue 10, Pages 1324-1328

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/eye.2012.160

Keywords

myopia; smoking; parental

Categories

Funding

  1. Ministry of Health, Singapore [NMRC/1009/2005]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose To assess the relationship between parental smoking and childhood refractive errors in Singapore Chinese children aged 6-72 months recruited through the STrabismus, Amblyopia, and Refractive errors in Singaporean children study. Methods A total of 4164 children were recruited, with a positive response rate of 72.3% (n = 3009). Cycloplegic refraction measurements were obtained from all children by trained eye professionals. Parents underwent an interviewer-administered questionnaire with information on demographics, lifestyle, and parental smoking history being obtained. Results Spherical equivalent readings were obtained for 87.7% of the children. In all, 52.1% were male (n = 1375). The overall prevalence of myopia (at least -0.5 D) was 11.0%. Overall, 37.1% of the fathers interviewed gave a history of smoking. Among the mothers interviewed, 9.2% gave a history of smoking, 6.6% had smoked during the child's life, and 2.2% had smoked during the pregnancy. Maternal history of ever smoking, smoking during child's life, and smoking during pregnancy were associated with decreased odds ratio (OR) of childhood myopia (OR 0.50 (P = 0.01), OR 0.39 (P = 0.01), and OR 0.3 (P = 0.14), respectively). Paternal history of smoking was associated with decreased OR of childhood myopia (OR of 0.72 (P = 0.02)). Conclusion In light of this finding of an inverse association between parental smoking and childhood myopia, further studies are suggested to better understand the role of nicotinic acetylcholine receptor pharmacology in ocular development. This may pave the way for the development of targeted treatment strategies for prevention of myopia. Eye (2012) 26, 1324-1328; doi:10.1038/eye.2012.160; published online 31 August 2012

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available