Validation of plusoptiX S04 photoscreener as a vision screening tool in children with intellectual disability

Uğurbaş, Sılay Cantürk; Alpay, Atilla; Tutar, Huseyin; Sağdık, Hacı Murat; Uğurbaş, Suat Hayri

doi:10.1016/j.jaapos.2011.05.023

Cited by 12 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…[7] Many studies have shown the Plusoptix to be a rapid, accurate, and noninvasive refractometer in preschool children and in individuals with intellectual or physical disabilities, and it has excellent specificity and sensitivity. [4,8] The mean spherical power and spherical equivalent recorded using the Plusoptix S09 were 1.53 ± 2.01 D and 1.33 ± 1.97 D, respectively, whereas using the cycloplegic autorefractometer they were 0.61 ± 2.02 D and 0.73 ± 2.05 D, respectively, in all the children, which were not significantly different between the 2 devices (paired t -test, P > 0.05). We observed significant Pearson's correlation coefficients of 0.748, 0.893, and 0.782 between the Plusoptix S09 and cycloplegic autorefractometer for spherical, cylindrical, and spherical equivalent refractive errors, respectively.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 87%

A comparison of the Plusoptix S09 with an autorefractometer of noncycloplegics and cycloplegics in children

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of the study is to compare outcome measures of refractive error obtained using the Plusoptix S09 photorefractor and an autorefractometer of noncycloplegics and cycloplegics in children.We reviewed the medical records of 40 patients (77 eyes) who were classified using 2 methods. The patients were first assigned to 2 groups consisting of 11 eyes with ≥+3.0 D and 66 eyes with <+3.0 D, and then to 2 groups of 12 and 65 eyes with cycloplegic and noncycloplegic refraction of spherical powers ≥+2.0 D and <+2.0 D, respectively. We compared the outcome measures of refractive error using the Plusoptix S09 photorefractor and an autorefractometer of noncycloplegics and cycloplegics.There was no statistically significant difference between the Plusoptix S09 photorefractor and cycloplegic autorefractometer in the spherical power and spherical equivalent. In contrast, there was a statistically significant difference between the Plusoptix S09 photorefractor and noncycloplegic autorefractometer (P < 0.001). There was a statistically significant difference between the spherical equivalent of the Plusoptix S09 photorefractor and cycloplegic autorefractometer in children with hyperopia ≥+3.0D and with cycloplegic and noncycloplegic refraction of spherical power ≥+2.0 D. We also found a significant difference between the outcomes of the Plusoptix S09 photorefractor and cycloplegic autorefractometer in the spherical power and spherical equivalent for children with hyperopia ≥+3.0 D.The refractive error of the Plusoptix S09 photorefractor was similar to that of the cycloplegic autorefractometer, in contrast to the noncycloplegic autorefractometer. However, the Plusoptix S09 photorefractor is an inaccurate tool to estimate the refractive errors of children with moderate hyperopia.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 87%

A comparison of the Plusoptix S09 with an autorefractometer of noncycloplegics and cycloplegics in children

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This suggests the probability that the photoscreener will detect a true positive result is higher than VA testing alone. This modelling of the diagnostic accuracy of the Snellen chart and crowded logMAR tests 35 suggests that to achieve a level of sensitivity and PPV equivalent to the photoscreeners' performance in the study by Ugurbas et al 21 (47%), a crowded logMAR test would require a cut-off of 0.200 logMAR. The modelling suggests that to achieve a PPV of 100% using crowded logMAR to detect amblyogenic factors, a cut-off of 0.500 logMAR would be required, but this would reduce sensitivity to just 18%.…”

Section: Applicationmentioning

confidence: 89%

“…The ability of the device to correctly detect the presence of one of the referral criteria (sensitivity) ranges from 47% to 99%, the lower end of which resulted in 18 out of 34 cases being missed by the device, which were identified by orthoptic screening. 15 The ability of the device to correctly identify the absence of any of the referral criteria (specificity) ranged from 49% to 100% giving from zero to 63 (out of 124) false positive referrals, 21 where children were referred unnecessarily.…”

Section: Diagnostic Accuracymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…From the studies listed in Table 3, the highest rate of false positives was 35%. 21 This high number (63) of false positives may be due to the demographic of subjects screened, as the population was those with intellectual disability. The use of this population may have biased the findings of the study and the results can not directly be considered in comparison to a population unaffected by spectrum bias.…”

Section: Diagnostic Accuracymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The use of the plusoptiX photoscreener for vision screening

Tidbury

O’Connor

2012

British and Irish Orthoptic Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: Auto-refractors have evolved into tools that can be used for vision screening by detecting uncorrected refractive errors and eye misalignment in less than a second. By comparing the measured levels of refractive error to pre-set criteria and assessing ocular alignment, the device will advise a 'Pass' or 'Fail' result for each child screened. The aim of this review is to determine if the plusoptiX photoscreener provides a viable alternative to traditional screening methods. Methods: A literature search of databases was performed, focusing on publications from the last 5 years. Results: The ability of the device to detect the presence of a referral factor (sensitivity) ranges from 47% to 99%. The ability of the device to correctly identify that referral factor (specificity) ranges from 49% to 100%. Low sensitivity resulted in up to a 6.3% rate of under-referral by the device (false negative) with low specificity resulting in 35% of those screened being referred unnecessarily (false positives). These ranges can be changed by adjusting the referral criteria within the device, with the level of hypermetropia detected the greatest cause of under-or over-referral. Conclusion: By setting the appropriate criteria for referral within the device, a reasonable level of sensitivity and specificity have been demonstrated. The device could provide a useful tool for screening, offering a good level of accuracy for the detection of amblyogenic risk factors in children.

show abstract

“…Our findings suggest that refractions by the Spot and Plusoptix screeners are useful as a starting point for further evaluation using cycloplegic retinoscopy, particularly when prescribing glasses. Although the Plusoptix has been demonstrated to be useful in special needs patients, 5,13,22 the Spot was able to provide binocular refraction estimates in a larger percentage of patients, especially those with strabismus. However, although the Spot device provides a refractive estimate, it should be noted that it is not marketed as an autorefractor.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Photoscreeners in the Pediatric Eye Office: Compared Testability and Refractions on High-Risk Children

Peterseim¹,

Papa²,

Wilson³

et al. 2014

American Journal of Ophthalmology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PURPOSE To compare refractive data and testability of Spot (PediaVision) and Plusoptix A09 (Plusoptix, Inc) photoscreeners and to compare each device with traditional cycloplegic retinoscopy. DESIGN Prospective, interventional case series. METHODS After informed consent, patients underwent testing with the Spot and Plusoptix photoscreeners before their examination by a pediatric ophthalmologist masked to the results. Data including testability and estimated refractions were entered into a Research Electronic Data Capture database for statistical analysis. RESULTS A total of 265 children were enrolled (mean age, 6.0 ± 3.4 years). Both devices produced a computer printout result in 250 (94.3%) of the patients. The Spot photoscreener provided a refractive estimate in all computer printouts, whereas the Plusoptix, used binocularly, provided a refractive estimate in 75.2% (188/250) of the printouts. Compared with cycloplegic retinoscopy, both devices underestimated hyperopia or overestimated myopia (−1.35 diopters [D] and −0.64 D, Spot and Plusoptix, respectively) and overestimated astigmatism (0.36 D and 0.32 D, Spot and Plusoptix, respectively). The intraclass correlation coefficient for spherical equivalents indicated good agreement between cycloplegic retinoscopy and Spot (0.806) and excellent agreement between cycloplegic retinoscopy and Plusoptix (0.898). CONCLUSIONS The Spot photoscreener provided refractive data on a greater percentage of children. The photorefractors correlated with cycloplegic retinoscopy refractive findings for sphere and spherical equivalents, but underestimated hyperopia or overestimated myopia and overestimated astigmatism. The binocular refractions of Plusoptix agreed more closely with the refractions of our pediatric ophthalmologists.

show abstract

Validation of plusoptiX S04 photoscreener as a vision screening tool in children with intellectual disability

Cited by 12 publications

References 12 publications

A comparison of the Plusoptix S09 with an autorefractometer of noncycloplegics and cycloplegics in children

A comparison of the Plusoptix S09 with an autorefractometer of noncycloplegics and cycloplegics in children

The use of the plusoptiX photoscreener for vision screening

Photoscreeners in the Pediatric Eye Office: Compared Testability and Refractions on High-Risk Children

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About