Table 2.
Name | Country | Year | Children examined | Ocular Problem | Refractive Error | Usher's | Fundus | Motility |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Guy et al.[2] | United Kingdom | 2003 | 122 | 110/122 | 43 | 6/122 | ||
(90.1) | (39.1) | (4.9) | ||||||
Hanioğlu-Kargi Se[3] | Turkey | 2003 | 104 | 42/104 | 31/104 | 9/104 | ||
(40.4) | (29.3) | (8.6) | ||||||
Elango et al.[4] | Malaysia | 1994 | 165 | 95/165 | 23 | 35.2 Rubella | ||
(57.6) | (13.9) | |||||||
Siatkowski, et al.[5] | USA | 1994 | 54 | 33/54 | 24/54 | 3/54 | 2/54 | |
(61.1) | (44.4) | (5.5) | (3.7) | |||||
Ma et al.[6] | China | 1989 | 279 | 100/279 | 50/279 | 2/279 | 80/279 | |
(35.8) | (17.9) | (0.7) | (28.6) | |||||
Nicol et al.[7] | Australia | 1988 | 78 | 26/78 | ||||
(33) | ||||||||
Regenbogen et al.[8] | 1985 | 150 | 68 | 12 | ||||
(45.3) | (1.3 | |||||||
Present study | India | 2008 | 901 | 216/901 | 167/901 | 5/901 | 10/901 | 12/901 |
(24.0) | (18.5) | (0.6) | (1.1) | (1.3) |
Figures in parentheses indicate percentage