A Comparison of Refraction Defects in Childhood Measured Using Plusoptix S09, 2WIN Photorefractometer, Benchtop Autorefractometer, and Cycloplegic Retinoscopy

Yalçın, Elvan; Sultan, Pınar; Yılmaz, Sabire; Pallikaris, Ioannis G.

doi:10.3109/08820538.2015.1118135

Cited by 10 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The PlusoptiX, 2WIN, and Topcon KR-8900 table top autorefractor were compared showing better correlation between sphere and cylinder than J45 vector component in 100 patients. 35 The SPOT outperformed Plusoptix with respect to specificity in highly astigmatic children. 36 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Instrument Referral Criteria for PlusoptiX, SPOT and 2WIN Targeting 2021 AAPOS Guidelines

Arnold¹,

Silbert²,

Modjesky³

2022

OPTH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background:The American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus (AAPOS) issued a 2021 update of Uniform Validation Guidelines for instrument-based pediatric vision screeners. With each update it is important for each manufacturer to update the Instrument Referral Criteria (IRC) programed into their devices in order to optimize sensitivity and specificity to detect AAPOS criteria. Methods: De-identified data comparing photoscreening with simultaneous confirmatory examinations constituted separate cohorts for the development of IRC via receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. The refractions of the devices were also compared. Results: This study defines three sets of refractive IRC (Sensitive, Medium, and Specific) for three leading infrared photoscreening devices, PlusoptiX A12, Welch-Allyn SPOT, and Adaptica 2WIN for children < 4 and ≥ 4 years in order to better target the 2021 AAPOS guidelines. The cohorts were similar but the SPOT group (n=755, mean age 9) was older with more astigmatism and the 2WIN (n=1362, mean age 7) was younger with more hyperopia and anisometropia compared to the cohort for PlusoptiX A12 (n=616, mean age 8). The age-based, medium magnitude IRC for anisometropia, hyperopia, astigmatism and myopia for SPOT were: <4y: 1

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Instrument Referral Criteria for PlusoptiX, SPOT and 2WIN Targeting 2021 AAPOS Guidelines

Arnold¹,

Silbert²,

Modjesky³

2022

OPTH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In another study of 100 children, Plusoptix and 2WIN were better at estimating sphere than cylinder compared to Topcon KR-8900 autorefractor. 15 Cycloplegic Retinomax in younger children lagged behind retinoscopy with respect to uncovering hyperopia especially in younger children. 16 The dry Grand Seiko was slightly better than the dry Topcon KR800 at detecting cycloplegic refractive error in 886 Chinese school children.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ellipsoid Spectacle Comparison of Plusoptix, Retinomax and 2WIN Autorefractors

Arnold¹,

Martin²,

Beveridge³

et al. 2021

OPTH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Handheld devices can automatically give an estimate of refraction. The established method for refraction comparison using spherical equivalent (M) and J0, J45 vector transformations by Bland-Altman analysis is too complex for non-eye doctors involved with vision screening and remote vision clinics. Therefore, a simpler comparison technique was developed. Methods: Based on the spectacle limit to resolve grade A 1 logMAR, B 3 logMAR and C 6 logMAR blur, J0, J45, and M are combined into the Alaska Blind Child Discovery (ABCD) composite ellipsoid GRADE system. Pediatric eye patients had confirmatory examination after dry refraction with three portable autorefractors: Plusoptix, 2WIN and Retinomax. The refractions were then compared using both Bland-Altman and ABCD composite. Performance to detect AAPOS amblyopia risk factors was also assessed. Results: A total of 202 children, mean age seven years, 28% high spectacle need and 43% AAPOS 2013 amblyopia risk factors showed high correlation with cycloplegic refraction (intraclass correlation 0.49 to 0.90) for sphere, J0 and J45 spectacle components. Plusoptix had more (10%) inconclusives due to patients out-of-range. The Retinomax was unable to screen some younger children and was less reliable for sphere but gave more precise astigmatism estimates. The proportion of autorefractions expected to give GRADE A/B highneed patients acuity improvement to 20/40 would be 41% for Plusoptix, 39% for 2WIN and 65% for Retinomax. Sensitivity/specificity for amblyopia risk factor detection was 80%/83% for Plusoptix, 72%/88% for 2WIN and 84%/73% for Retinomax. Conclusion:The simplified spectacle comparison resembled Bland-Altman and could assist lay vision screeners and non-eye doctors attempting remote spectacle donation worldwide.

show abstract

“… 28 , 32–44 The refractive accuracy has been compared. 18 , 22 , 28 , 43 , 45 PlusoptiX is useful on special-needs children. 46 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…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%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

A Comparison of Refraction Defects in Childhood Measured Using Plusoptix S09, 2WIN Photorefractometer, Benchtop Autorefractometer, and Cycloplegic Retinoscopy

Abstract: While consistency was observed in all methods in terms of sphere and spherical equivalence, consistency dropped in cylindrical values and no consistency was observed in axis values. It is important to take this point into consideration, especially in axis measurements.

Cited by 10 publications

References 21 publications

Instrument Referral Criteria for PlusoptiX, SPOT and 2WIN Targeting 2021 AAPOS Guidelines

Instrument Referral Criteria for PlusoptiX, SPOT and 2WIN Targeting 2021 AAPOS Guidelines

Ellipsoid Spectacle Comparison of Plusoptix, Retinomax and 2WIN Autorefractors

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About