Diagnostic accuracy of vision screening tests for the detection of amblyopia and its risk factors: a systematic review

Schmucker, Christine; Großelfinger, Robert; Riemsma, Rob; Antes, Gerd; Lange, Stefan; Lagrèze, Wolf A.; Kleijnen, Jos

doi:10.1007/s00417-009-1150-2

Cited by 20 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Other commercial devices that have used this measurement principle include: iScreen Vision, MTI PS-100 Photoscreener, PlusOptix S08 AutoRefractor/Photoscreener (Previous models were PowerRefractor and Plusoptix S04, current version is S09), Right Medical Retinomax Autorefractor, Visiscreen OSS-C, Welch Allyn SureSight Autorefractor, Fortune Optical VRB-100 videophotorefractor. [5][6][7][8] Various studies suggest that non-cycloplegic photorefraction has reasonable accuracy and repeatability compared with cycloplegic retinoscopy and subjective refraction. However, in a study it was demonstrated that accommodation may not be completely neutralized.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Objective measurement of refractive errors: Comparison of plusoptix s08 with a standard autorefractometer

Demirel

Bilak²,

Cumurcu³

et al. 2013

J Clin Exp Invest

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

, Cemil Çolak 4ÖZET Amaç: Çocuklarda ve erişkinlerdeki refraksiyon kusuru ölçümünde, Plusoptix S08 ile standart bir oto refraktometre (Topcon RM 8000B) ölçümlerinin karşılaştırılması.Yöntemler: Yaş ortalaması 8.06 ± 2.89 yıl olan 110 çocu-ğun 220 gözü Plusoptix S08 ile sikloplejisiz olarak, Topcon RM-8000B otorefraktometresiyle sikloplejili olarak ölçüldü. Elde edilen değerler karşılaştırıldı. Ayrıca, yaş ortalaması 33,3 ± 13,4 olan 127 yetişkinin 254 gözü, Plusoptix S08 ve Topcon RM 8000B otorefraktometre ile sikloplejisiz olarak ölçülerek, bu ölçümlerin karşılaştırması yapıldı. Tüm ölçümler üç kez tekrarlandı. Ortalama sferik, silindirik, sferik ekivalan ve silindirik aks değerleri istatistiksel olarak karşılaştırıldı. Methods: 220 eyes of 110 children, with a mean age of 8.06 ± 2.89 years old were examined to compare noncycloplegic measurements provided by Plusoptix S08 and cycloplegic measurements provided by Topcon RM-8000B autorefractometer. In addition, 254 eyes of 127 adults, with a mean age of 33.3 ± 13.36 years old were examined to compare non-cycloplegic refractive measurements provided by Plusoptix S08 and Topcon RM 8000B autorefractometer. All measurements were repeated three times. Median sphere, cylinder, spherical equivalent and cylindrical axes as Jackson cross cylinder power measurements (J0 and J45) were compared statistically. Results Conclusion:Plusoptix S08 has a myopic misspelled according to Topcon-RM8000B autorefractometer in children. However, measurements provided with Plusoptix S08 were more hyperopic than those with Topcon RM-8000B autorefractometer in adults. J Clin Exp Invest 2013; 4 (1): 40-46

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Objective measurement of refractive errors: Comparison of plusoptix s08 with a standard autorefractometer

Demirel

Bilak²,

Cumurcu³

et al. 2013

J Clin Exp Invest

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The New Zealand Vision Hearing Screening program, which has existed for over 40 years, attempts to screen all children at ages four to five and 11 years for vision and hearing problems; however, there is a lack of consistent evidence on the robustness of vision screening programs, 1 the best screening tests to use, the most appropriate referral criteria and which screening personnel to utilise 1,2 . Much of the current research on children's vision screening programs focuses on the efficacy of various screening tools for identifying preschool children with amblyopia, 3,4 strabismus 5 and significant refractive errors 6 .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Review of preschool vision screening referrals in South Auckland, New Zealand

Anstice

Spink

Abdul-Rahman

2012

Clinical and Experimental Optometry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Limited data are available on the causes of visual impairment in preschool children in New Zealand. We aimed to review demographic and visual parameters in children referred to the Ophthalmology Department, Manukau Super Clinic from vision screening programs in South Auckland. Methods: Retrospective medical record review of 131 children, aged three to five years, referred from community-based vision screening programs to the Ophthalmology Department for further assessment. Medical records were reviewed to determine: the reason for referral; findings from ophthalmic assessments; treatment received; and visual acuity at the final visit. The main outcome measures were the cause of visual impairment in children referred from preschool vision screening and the visual acuity at the final follow-up visit. Results: Thirty-eight (29.0 per cent) children were discharged after their initial assessment as false positive referrals. Almost half (45.5 per cent) of the children were prescribed glasses for the correction of refractive error, amblyopia or strabismus. Twentynine (22.1 per cent) children were diagnosed with amblyopia with an average follow-up period of 17.5 Ϯ 2.7 months. In general, compliance with therapy for amblyopia was poor with 48.3 per cent non-compliant with their prescribed treatment regimen. Despite this, visual outcomes were good with an average final visual acuity in the amblyopic eye of 0.294 Ϯ 0.231 logMAR (Snellen 6/12). Conclusions: The 'positive predictive value' for the Counties-Manukau preschool vision screening program was 47.4 per cent, suggesting that the visual acuity measurements alone produce a significant number of false positive results. In children diagnosed with amblyopia, early detection and intervention showed significant improvement in vision in the amblyopic eye, with many children also showing improved binocular function.

show abstract

“…There has been much debate about the efficacy of primary visual screening in many countries across Europe, [2][3][4][5] the USA and Canada, [6][7][8] Australia, 8,9 Asia 10-14 and the Middle East. [15][16][17][18] Many aspects of visual screening in the UK have been examined including: age at testing, 19,20 tests used, [21][22][23] personnel undertaking the screening, [24][25][26] referral criteria, 21,27 and cost-effectiveness. 28 For a primary visual screening programme to be viable it has to have excellent coverage of the target group 29,30 and show the highest possible levels of sensitivity and specificity.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[15][16][17][18] Many aspects of visual screening in the UK have been examined including: age at testing, 19,20 tests used, [21][22][23] personnel undertaking the screening, [24][25][26] referral criteria, 21,27 and cost-effectiveness. 28 For a primary visual screening programme to be viable it has to have excellent coverage of the target group 29,30 and show the highest possible levels of sensitivity and specificity. 28,30,31 The results of this audit of screening visual acuities falling between 0.15 logMAR and 0.20 logMAR inclusive showed a false referral rate of 18.9% if the false referral is taken as the child not needing any follow-up.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Vision screening referral criteria: an audit

Wickens

Asghar²,

Pawelczyk³

et al. 2012

British and Irish Orthoptic Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims: To investigate whether children with significant refractive errors are going undetected at screening using the referral criterion of visual acuity worse than 0.20 logMAR. To review the refractive status of children referred to community clinics from the reception class screening test with visual acuities of between 0.15 and 0.20 logMAR inclusive. Methods: Primary visual and orthoptic screening was performed in the reception classes of the mainstream primary schools in the south Birmingham area. The children whose visual acuities were found to be between 0.15 and 0.20 logMAR inclusive were recorded. A spreadsheet was created for each academic year. The following were recorded: visual acuities at screening; the visual acuities at first visit to the clinic; the results of refraction; whether glasses were prescribed or not; and whether the child was followed-up. Results: Over a 5-year period, 348 children were recorded who came within the audit criteria. Of these, 275 attended their first appointment, 240 were refracted and 122 of these were prescribed glasses. These 122 represent 35.1% of all the children included in the audit and 50.1% of the children who were refracted. A total of 221 children (80.4%) had follow-up appointments. The reasons for follow-up were analysed. Conclusions: Significant refractive errors are going undetected at reception class screening with the visual acuity referral level set at less than 0.20 logMAR. The age at which the universal screening is carried out needs to be more precisely identified in screening programmes.

show abstract

Diagnostic accuracy of vision screening tests for the detection of amblyopia and its risk factors: a systematic review

Abstract: Diagnostic test accuracy of preschool vision screening tests can only be sufficiently investigated after establishing age-related values defining amblyopia, refractive errors and binocular disorders. To address these questions, we recommend a controlled longitudinal study design.

Cited by 20 publications

References 43 publications

Objective measurement of refractive errors: Comparison of plusoptix s08 with a standard autorefractometer

Objective measurement of refractive errors: Comparison of plusoptix s08 with a standard autorefractometer

Review of preschool vision screening referrals in South Auckland, New Zealand

Vision screening referral criteria: an audit

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About