Successes and shortfalls of community Plusoptix photoscreening: results from the iSee study in Southwestern Ontario

Kiatos, Efstathia; Armstrong, James J.; Makar, Inas

doi:10.1016/j.jcjo.2020.07.022

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The Plusoptix family of photoscreeners (S04, s08, s09, s-12, s-16) has had extensive validation compared with eye chart visual acuity, 6,7 digital flash cameras, [7][8][9] the MTI photoscreener, 9,10 the iScreen, 9,[11][12][13] Suresight, 9,14-16 compared with SPOT, 12,13,[17][18][19][20][21] 2WIN, 17,[21][22][23][24][25][26] GoCheck Kids, 13 blinq, 25,26 with Retinomax 9,23,24,27,28 and table-top autorefractors, 22,29 community screening 30,31 and examination. 28,[32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44] The refractive accuracy has been compared.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative Validation of PlusoptiX and AI-Optic Photoscreeners in Children with High Amblyopia Risk Factor Prevalence

Arnold¹

2022

OPTH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose In 2022, an inexpensive multi-radial infrared photoscreener, the AI Optic was released in a similar format as the 2012 PlusoptiX a-12 but utilizing artificial intelligence (AI) for online, central image interpretation. We studied them because no prior comparative validation concerning amblyopia risk factors and particularly refractive error has been done. Patients and Methods Children from a pediatric ophthalmology practice had AI Optic and PlusoptiX-a12 photoscreen concomitantly during comprehensive examination with precisely measured strabismus and refraction. Validation to AAPOS 2021 and 2013 guidelines was evaluated with receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves while refractive estimates were compared by the ABCD ellipsoid univariable technique. Results In 200 ethnically diverse children aged 1–18, 148 were 4 years or older, 35% had developmental delays, and 2/3 had amblyopia risk factors (ARF). Area under the ROC curve (AUC) targeting AAPOS 2021 refractive plus strabismus for age ≥4 years was 0.58 for AI Optic and 0.74 for PlusoptiX while for children <4 years, AUC was 0.53 for AI Optic and 0.72 for PlusoptiX. For 134 comparable sphero-cylinder refractions, the ABCD Ellipsoid median (interquartile ranges) for AI Optic right eye 2.53 (1.54, 4.01) and left eye 3.05 (1.83, 5.00) did not approximate actual refraction as well as by PlusoptiX right eye 1.88 (1.12, 2.86) and left eye 2.10 (1.26, 3.04) Mann Whitney z=3.7 right and 4.2 left, p<0.001 each. AI Optic via central “AI” reading gave sphero-cylinder and referral estimates in all but 16 of 200 high risk children whereas Plusoptix had 25 inconclusives. On the other hand, with inconclusives scored as a refer, Plusoptix outperformed AI Optic in terms of ARF validation and refractive estimate. Conclusion Plusoptix provided more valid amblyopia and refractive screening than the cheaper AI Optic. Clinics must weigh cost versus performance, and central data sharing before selecting one of these vision-saving devices.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative Validation of PlusoptiX and AI-Optic Photoscreeners in Children with High Amblyopia Risk Factor Prevalence

Arnold¹

2022

OPTH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A policy statement from the American Academy of Paediatrics, American Academy of Ophthalmology, American Association for Paediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus and American Association of Certified Orthoptists have recommended the use of photoscreeners and handheld autorefractor devices as an alternative method for amblyopia and strabismus screening of children from 3 to 5 years old. 18 The instrumental vision screeners are categorised as ‘table tops or handheld devices’, for example, Plusoptix S12 19 and Spot Vision Screener 20 are handheld devices, while Zeiss Visuref 21 and iScreen 3000 22 are ‘table-tops devices’…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Technologies supporting vision screening: a protocol for a scoping review

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Vision problems affect academic performance, social and mental health. Most traditional vision screening methods rely on human expert assessments based on a set of vision tests. As technology advances, new instruments and computerised tools are available for complementing vision screening. The scoping review based on this protocol aims to investigate current technologies for vision screening, what vision tests can be complemented by technologies, and how these can support vision screening by providing measurements. Methods and analysis The planned review will utilise the PRISMA extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) tool. Electronic search will be performed in databases, including Web of Science, MEDLINE (Ovid), Scopus, Engineering Village, Cochrane and Embase. We will perform a systematic search in selected reference databases without the limitation on publications dates, or country of studies. Reference management software, like EndNote and DistillerSR, will be used to remove duplicate entries. Two authors will independently analyse the studies for inclusion eligibility. Conflicts will be resolved by discussion. We will extract the types of technologies, types of vision tests they complement and the measurements for the included studies. Overall findings will be synthesised by thematic analysis and mapping to the logic model. Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval is not required for this review, as it will only summarise existing published data. We will publish the findings in an open access, peer-reviewed journal. We expect that the review results will be useful for vision screening experts, developers, researchers, and policymakers.

show abstract

“… 3 In the current issue, Kiatos and colleagues evaluated a community-based amblyopia screening program for preschool children in Southwestern Ontario. 4 The program used a handheld, non-mydriatic autorefractor device, known as a photoscreener, to detect amblyopia and its risk factors with 80% sensitivity and 95% specificity. This screening strategy has the benefit of being portable and can be administered by lay operators.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Resident Perspectives 56–1

2021

Canadian Journal of Ophthalmology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Successes and shortfalls of community Plusoptix photoscreening: results from the iSee study in Southwestern Ontario

Cited by 3 publications

References 36 publications

Comparative Validation of PlusoptiX and AI-Optic Photoscreeners in Children with High Amblyopia Risk Factor Prevalence

Comparative Validation of PlusoptiX and AI-Optic Photoscreeners in Children with High Amblyopia Risk Factor Prevalence

Technologies supporting vision screening: a protocol for a scoping review

Resident Perspectives 56–1

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About