Effectiveness of the Spot Vision Screener using updated 2021 AAPOS guidelines

Peterseim, Mae Millicent W.; Trivedi, Rupal H.; Monahan, Savannah Reaves; Smith, Samantha; Bowsher, James D; Alex, Anastasia; Wilson, M. Edward; Wolf, Bethany J.

doi:10.1016/j.jaapos.2022.11.019

Cited by 8 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…21 The AUC for the detection of more than 2 D of myopia was also excellent in children 4-12 years old (AUC 0.97), which was identical to the Spot Vision Screener in children aged 4-13 years (AUC 0.97). 22 The ability to detect astigmatism >1.75 D (AUC 0.97, 95% CI: 0.95-0.99) or ≥1.00 D (AUC 0.96, 95% CI: 0.93-0.99) using the QuickSee was also excellent. These findings were comparable with the results reported for the detection of ≥1.50 D astigmatism for SureSight and Retinomax (AUC for both 0.95, 95% CI: 0.91-0.99) in children aged 5-13 years and better than that previously reported for the Spot Vision Screener (AUC 0.90) for the detection of astigmatism ≥1.00 D in children aged 6-16 years.…”

Section: Any Significant Refractive Error Definition Nmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…The ability of the QuickSee to detect various levels of significant refractive error (based on cycloplegic retinoscopy during the comprehensive eye examination) was evaluated based on prior guidelines, criteria and studies (see Table 2). 4,18,22,26,31 The American Academy for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus (AAPOS) uniform guidelines were included due to their common use for instrument-based paediatric vision screening 18 ; criteria from seminal vision screening studies in preschool (VIP Study) 26,32 and school-age children (Orinda Study) 31 were also included.…”

Section: Definitions Of Significant Vision Conditionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…24 Figure 4 shows AUCs for QuickSee in the current study and previously reported AUCs of instrument-based screening studies in school-age children. 21,22,24 The AUCs using the QuickSee were ≥0.92 for each classification T A B L E 6 Detection of any significant vision condition (significant refractive error, amblyopia, strabismus) in children using QuickSee. Sphere (most positive meridian of both eyes) values from the QuickSee and Cycloplegic refraction.…”

Section: Any Significant Refractive Error Definition Nmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…24 The detection of hyperopia >+4.00 D was also excellent (AUC 0.97; 95% CI: 0.94-1) and greater than previously reported for the Spot Vision Screener in children aged 4-13 years (AUC 0.87). 22 Performance of the QuickSee was also excellent for the detection of (AUC 0.95 for D, 95% CI: 0.91-0.99) and better than previously reported for the SureSight (AUC 0.86, 95% CI: 0.81-0.91) and the Retinomax (AUC 0.85, 95% CI: 0.79-0.90) in children aged 5-13 years, 24 as well as for the Spot Vision Screener (AUC 0.89) in children aged 6-16 years. 21 The AUC for the detection of more than 2 D of myopia was also excellent in children 4-12 years old (AUC 0.97), which was identical to the Spot Vision Screener in children aged 4-13 years (AUC 0.97).…”

Section: Any Significant Refractive Error Definition Nmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thus, the area under the ROC curve (AUC) summarises the test's accuracy. [19][20][21][22] The percentage correctly referred is characterised by the test's sensitivity, that is, the proportion of cases with vision problems who fail the screening. Specificity is the proportion of those without a vision problem who pass the screening (correct non-referrals).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Detection of significant vision conditions in children using QuickSee wavefront autorefractor

Bui,

Mitchell,

McDaniel

et al. 2024

Ophthalmic Physiologic Optic

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThis study evaluated the ability of QuickSee to detect children at risk for significant vision conditions (significant refractive error [RE], amblyopia and strabismus).MethodsNon‐cycloplegic refraction (using QuickSee without and with +2 dioptre (D) fogging lenses) and unaided binocular near visual acuity (VA) were measured in 4‐ to 12‐year‐old children. Eye examination findings (VA, cover testing and cycloplegic retinoscopy) were used to determine the presence of vision conditions. QuickSee performance was summarised by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity and specificity for various levels of RE. QuickSee referral criteria for each vision condition were chosen to maximise sensitivity at a specificity of approximately 85%–90%. Sensitivity and specificity to detect vision conditions were calculated using multiple criteria. Logistic regression was used to evaluate the benefit of adding near VA (6/12 or worse) for detecting hyperopia. A paired t‐test compared QuickSee without and with fogging lenses.ResultsThe mean age was 8.2 (±2.5) years (n = 174). RE ranged up to 9.25 D myopia, 8 D hyperopia, 5.25 D astigmatism and 3.5 D anisometropia. The testability of the QuickSee was 94.3%. AUC was ≥0.92 (excellent) for each level of RE. For the detection of any RE, sensitivity and specificity were 84.2% and 87.3%, respectively, using modified Orinda criteria and 94.5% and 78.2%, respectively, using the American Academy for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus (AAPOS) guidelines. For the detection of any significant vision condition, the sensitivity and specificity of QuickSee were 81.1% and 87.9%, respectively, using modified Orinda criteria and 93% and 78.6%, respectively, using AAPOS criteria. There was no significant benefit of adding near VA to QuickSee for the detection of hyperopia ≥+2.00 (p = 0.34). There was no significant difference between QuickSee measurements of hyperopic refractive error with and without fogging lenses (difference = −0.09 D; p = 0.51).ConclusionsQuickSee had high discriminatory power for detecting children with hyperopia, myopia, astigmatism, anisometropia, any significant refractive error or any significant vision condition.

show abstract

Section: Any Significant Refractive Error Definition Nmentioning

confidence: 93%

Section: Definitions Of Significant Vision Conditionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Any Significant Refractive Error Definition Nmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Any Significant Refractive Error Definition Nmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Detection of significant vision conditions in children using QuickSee wavefront autorefractor

Bui,

Mitchell,

McDaniel

et al. 2024

Ophthalmic Physiologic Optic

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Effectiveness of the Spot Vision Screener With Variations in Ocular Pigments

Pophal,

Trivedi,

Bowsher

et al. 2024

American Journal of Ophthalmology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Characteristics of refractive development in children aged 4 months to 8 years in urban China: A retrospective screening analysis

Yan,

Xia,

Zhang

et al. 2024

Ophthalmic Physiologic Optic

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeTo conduct a large retrospective study of screening refractive error in young children.MethodsThis retrospective study included children aged from 4 months to 8 years in Daxing District, Beijing, who underwent refractive examinations without cycloplegia. It included a cross‐sectional assessment of refractive error screening for all children, and a longitudinal component for a subgroup with data available for two to five visits.ResultsA total of 14,987 children were included in the cross‐sectional study. In the group <1 year of age, the percentage of children with a spherical equivalent (SE) >+2.00 D or with cylinder <−1.50 D was 15.25% and 33.24%, respectively. These were significantly higher than for the 1‐ to 4‐year‐old group (SE 8.1% higher, cylinder 13.2% higher) (χ2 = 53.57, p < 0.001; χ2 = 790.39, p < 0.001). Furthermore, 34.83% of children in the 0‐year‐old group had amblyopia risk factors (ARFs). In the 4‐year‐old group, boys had a significantly longer axial length (AL) than girls (differences in the right and left eyes were 0.53 and 0.56 mm, respectively; z = 5.48 p < 0.001, z = 5.80, p < 0.001). AL increased with age, while the AL difference between boys and girls remained stable at 4–8 years of age. The percentage of children aged 5–8 years with myopia in 2020–2021 was significantly higher than that in 2018–2019 (H = 12.44, p = 0.006). In the longitudinal study of 4406 children (up to 12‐month follow‐up), annual changes in SE were −0.27, −0.06, 0.19 and 0.13 D between 0 and 3 years, and −0.38, −0.58, −0.70 and −0.75 D between 5 and 8 years.ConclusionsChildren's refractive error varied significantly from ages 4 months to 1 year, with a high proportion having ARFs. Children aged 5–8 years showed a trend towards myopia. The prevalence of myopia in the cross‐sectional analysis in 2020–2021 was greater than in 2018–2019. Screening refraction changed minimally over a 12‐month period for children aged 1–3 years, but became more myopic for children aged 5–8 years.

show abstract

Effectiveness of the Spot Vision Screener using updated 2021 AAPOS guidelines

Cited by 8 publications

References 28 publications

Detection of significant vision conditions in children using QuickSee wavefront autorefractor

Detection of significant vision conditions in children using QuickSee wavefront autorefractor

Effectiveness of the Spot Vision Screener With Variations in Ocular Pigments

Characteristics of refractive development in children aged 4 months to 8 years in urban China: A retrospective screening analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About