Comparison between refraction measured by Spot Vision ScreeningTM and subjective clinical refractometry

Jesus, Daniela Lima de; Villela, Flávio Fernandes; Orlandin, Luis Fernando; Eiji, Fernando Naves; Dantas, Daniel Oliveira; Alves, Mílton Ruiz

doi:10.6061/clinics/2016(02)03

Cited by 7 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our assessment of the astigmatic values of Spot Vision and SureSight devices revealed that both measured non-cycloplegic J0 values a bit higher without cycloplegia, and with cycloplegia they were higher with Spot Vision and less with SureSight. Similarly, previous studies have reported slightly higher non-cycloplegic J0 values, with the difference ranging between 0.01 D and 0.16 D (12)(13)(14)16,19,29). Although Schimitzek et al (25) also observed less of a difference between the cycloplegic J0 measurements with SureSight, to our knowledge, an increase in the J0 values with cycloplegia with Spot Vision has not previously been observed.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 74%

“…It is not entirely clear whether or not these devices can be an adequate alternative to cycloplegic retinoscopy. Previous studies have reported varying degrees of difference between cycloplegic retinoscopic measurements and non-cycloplegic measurements obtained with these devices, depending on the age of the study population and the devices studied (9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(13) reported a difference of 0.66 D compared with cycloplegic retinoscopy in a group of patients aged 7 to 50 years. Mu et al (14) reported a difference of 0.49 D in 155 patients aged 4 to 7 years.…”

mentioning

confidence: 96%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Accuracy of photorefraction and wavefront-based autorefraction in children under 3 years of age.

Kara¹

2021

Beyoglu Eye J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: This study was designed to assess the accuracy of photorefraction and wavefront-based autorefraction in children under 3 years of age. Methods: A cross-sectional study was performed with children who had no ocular abnormalities other than a refractive error and were less than 3 years old. Spot Vision Screener (Welch Allyn Inc., Skaneateles Falls, NY, USA) was used for photorefraction and SureSight Vision Screener (Welch Allyn, Skaneateles Falls, NY) was used for autorefraction. The measurements were performed with both devices before and after cycloplegia. The results were compared with those obtained using cycloplegic retinoscopy. The assessments were performed in terms of spherical equivalent (SE) values and Jackson cross-cylinder power values (J0 and J45). Results: A total of 305 children with a mean age of 15.1±10.4 months were included. The mean SE values measured with the Spot Vision and SureSight before cycloplegia were 0.43±0.75 D and 0.90±0.86 D, respectively. Following cycloplegia, the mean SE values were 1.80±1.25 D and 1.55±1.40 D, respectively. The mean SE value obtained with cycloplegic retinoscopy was 1.53±1.34 D. The mean SE values measured with both devices prior to cycloplegia were significantly lower than that measured with cycloplegic retinoscopy (p<0.001). No significant difference was observed between the cycloplegic SE values obtained with SureSight and retinoscopy (p=0.66). Spot Vision yielded significantly higher cycloplegic SE values compared with cycloplegic retinoscopy (p<0.001). Conclusion: Both devices underestimated SE values in comparison with cycloplegic retinoscopy in children under 3 years of age. Wavefront-based autorefraction performed with cycloplegia may be an alternative to cycloplegic retinoscopy, but needs confirmation.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 74%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Accuracy of photorefraction and wavefront-based autorefraction in children under 3 years of age.

Kara¹

2021

Beyoglu Eye J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The SVS has been used in many studies because it is more convenient, flexible, portable, and does not require more active cooperation. De Jesus [ 67 ] evaluated the accuracy of Spot Vision Screening among 134 patients aged 17–50 years and reported that the difference between SVS and subjective clinical refractometry under cycloplegia expressed in SE was +0.66±0.56 D. De Jesus considered the difference nonrelevant in a clinical setting, supporting the use of SVS as an ancillary method for estimating refraction. Qian et al [ 68 ] found a strong linear relationship in SE between Spot and retinoscopy (Pearson's r=0.95, P<0.01) in Chinese children aged 4–6 years.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Refractive errors and risk factors for myopia in infants aged 1–18 months in Tianjin, China

Lü

2021

BMC Ophthalmol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Infancy is the of a child’s visual development. Refractive errors, especially myopia, are a common vision disorder. Thus, the purpose of this study was to explore refractive errors and risk factors for myopia among infants aged 1–18 months in Tianjin, China. Methods A total of 583 infants aged 1–18 months participated in this cross-sectional study at Tianjin Women’s and Children’s Health Center in China from February 2019 to November 2020. Each infant received a complete ophthalmologic examination, and myopia-related risk factors were investigated using a questionnaire. Results A total of 583 eligible infants participated in this study, including 312 (53.5%) boys and 271 (46.5%) girls. There were 164 (28.1%) premature born infants. The mean age was 6.59 ± 4.84 months (range, 1–18 months). The mean spherical equivalent (MSE) for the right eye was 1.81 D ± 1.56 D, with no difference related to sex (P = 0.104). Refractive state showed an average hyperopia of +2.74 ± 1.74 D at early ages, followed by a trend toward less hyperopia, finally reaching +1.35 ± 1.44 D at the age of 18 months (P ≤0.001). The overall prevalence rates of myopia (MSE ≤ −0.50 D), emmetropia (−0.50 D<MSE<+0.50 D), hyperopia (MSE ≥ +2.00 D), and astigmatism (≥ 1.50 D) were 5.1%, 10.8%, 42.7%, and 49.9%, respectively. The chi-square tests showed that gender, gestational age ≥37 weeks, winter birth, prenatal exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, and parental history of high myopia were associated with children’s myopia (P = 0.022, P = 0.023, P = 0.038, P = 0.015, P<0.001, respectively). Conclusions Among Chinese infants in Tianjin, hyperopia and astigmatism were the most frequent refractive errors, and the diopter was lower in individuals with higher age. In a small number of infants with myopia, genetic factors and the prenatal environment were associated with the early onset of myopia.

show abstract

“…This is further corroborated by research showing that children with language skills or developing mental delay can be screened using instrumental vision screening methods. 7 Jesus et al 17 concluded that instrumental technology for objective refraction measurement could support subjective refraction techniques. 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.…”

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

Comparison between refraction measured by Spot Vision ScreeningTM and subjective clinical refractometry

Cited by 7 publications

References 12 publications

Accuracy of photorefraction and wavefront-based autorefraction in children under 3 years of age.

Accuracy of photorefraction and wavefront-based autorefraction in children under 3 years of age.

Refractive errors and risk factors for myopia in infants aged 1–18 months in Tianjin, China

Technologies supporting vision screening: a protocol for a scoping review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About