Clinical Performance of the Spot Vision Photo Screener before and after Induction of Cycloplegia in Children

Abstract

Aim. To compare the clinical performance of the Spot Vision Screener used to detect amblyopia risk factors (ARFs) in children before and after induction of cycloplegia; the children were referred because they met the screening criteria of the American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus (AAPOS). Methods. The Spot Vision Screener and a standard autorefractometer were used to examine 200 eyes of 100 children aged 3–10 years, before and after cycloplegia induction, in terms of ARFs. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for the detection of significant refractive errors were measured using the AAPOS referral criteria. It was explored that Spot Screener data were affected by cycloplegia. The extent of agreement between cycloplegic/noncycloplegic photoscreening data and cycloplegic autorefraction measurements was assessed using Wilcoxon and Spearman correlation analyses. Results. The Spot’s sensitivity was improved from 60.9% to 85.3% and specificity from 94.9% to 87.4% with cycloplegia compared to cycloplegic standard autorefractometer results. The positive predictive value of Spot was 75.7%, and the negative predictive value was 90.4% without cycloplegia. With cycloplegia, the positive predictive value of Spot was 63.6% and the negative predictive value was 95.8%. Conclusions. The Spot Screener afforded moderate sensitivity and high specificity prior to cycloplegia. The sensitivity and negative predictive value improved after induction of cycloplegia. Examiners should be aware of the effects of cycloplegia on their findings.

The Effect of Biometric Parameters on Spot Vision Screener Results

“…Yakar noted that sensitivity and negative predictive value increased with cycloplegia. Therefore, he concluded that measurement using cycloplegia may be useful in selected cases [8]. In the present study, despite a slight difference in sensitivity, there was no increase in negative predictive value.…”

“…Although SVS is designed to work without cycloplegia, studies have also compared SVS with autorefractometer and/or retinoscopy and with and without cycloplegia [8]. Yakar noted that sensitivity and negative predictive value increased with cycloplegia.…”

“…Many studies have compared SVS devices with cycloplegia autorefractometers [CA] and retinoscopy [8][9][10][11]. SVS sensitivity has been reported as 60.9%-89.8% and its speci city as 70.4%-94.9% [8,[12][13][14]. However, few studies have investigated factors that may affect SVS performance [15].…”

Evaluation and Follow-up of Myopia Prevalence Among School-Aged Children Subsequent to the COVID-19 Home Confinement in Feicheng, China

“…[4][5][6][7][8][9] Compared with cycloplegic refraction, the results from the Spot Vision photoscreener have shown an overall overestimation of myopia, with a range of −0.17 to −0.49 diopters (D) in children aged 3 to 10 years. 4,[9][10][11] The school was informed of the screening date at least 1 week in advance. If applicable, students were required to remove contact lenses for the examination.…”

Corrigendum to “Clinical Performance of the Spot Vision Photo Screener before and after Induction of Cycloplegia in Children”

“…In the article titled “Clinical Performance of the Spot Vision Photo Screener before and after Induction of Cycloplegia in Children” [1], the spot measurement range in the Introduction was incorrect. The authors cited this range from the article available at https://tvst.arvojournals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2683874; however, in the spot user manual, the measurement range is written as “measuring range is ±7.50 diopters (D) for spherical errors and ±3.00 D for cylindrical errors.” Therefore, “measuring range is ±7.50 diopters (D) for spherical errors and ±3.50 D for cylindrical errors” should be corrected to “measuring range is ±7.50 diopters (D) for spherical errors and ±3.00 D for cylindrical errors.”…”