Comparison Between the plusoptiX and MTI Photoscreeners

Abstract

Both the Medical Technology and Innovations (MTI) and plusoptiX photoscreeners are used to objectively screen for amblyogenic risk factors in children. The MTI has been extensively studied, but the limited availability of film may render it obsolete. We compared the MTI with the plusoptiX, a newer digital photoscreener, for the ability to detect amblyogenic factors when compared with a comprehensive pediatric ophthalmic examination. We believe our results will help to guide community-based vision screening programs.Methods: One hundred fifty-one children were examined consecutively in our office. Each patient was screened with the MTI and plusoptiX devices on the same day as part of a comprehensive pediatric ophthalmic examination. Results via MTI were evaluated by an expert masked examiner (R.W.A.), and the plusoptiX results were interpreted by the incorporated software.Results: Sixty-five percent of patients were found to have amblyopia or amblyogenic risk factors during the pediatric ophthalmic examination conducted via the American Association of Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus referral criteria. We found the MTI photoscreener to have a sensitivity of 83.6%, specificity of 90.5%, falsepositive rate of 9.4%, false-negative rate of 16.3%, and positive predictive value of 94.2%. The plusoptiX demonstrated a sensitivity of 98.9%, specificity of 96.1%, falsepositive rate of 3.7%, false-negative rate of 1.0%, and positive predictive value of 97.9%. Conclusion:The MTI and plusoptiX photoscreeners proved to be effective when compared with a comprehensive cycloplegic pediatric ophthalmic examination. The plusoptiX, however, was found to have a higher sensitivity and specificity than the MTI.

Performance of Four New Photoscreeners on Pediatric Patients With High Risk Amblyopia

“…In pediatric eye practices with high prescreening probability, the MTI Photoscreener and PlusoptiX had similarly good performance (sensitivity 84% vs 99%, specificity 91% vs 96%, respectively). 8 Our results resemble this latter comparison study and exceed photoscreening results from the Vision in Preschoolers Study.…”

“…Some current models with uniform computer or Internet interpretation compare favorably with the MTI Photoscreener. 8,9 Photoscreeners rely on a short flash-to-lens location and a screening distance from the patient sufficient to yield a flash-eye-lens angle of approximately 1°. Consumer digital cameras matching this description can provide clinically useful photoscreen images.…”

Objective measurement of refractive errors: Comparison of plusoptix s08 with a standard autorefractometer

“…Major disadvantages of photorefractors are its limited ability to measure range and questionable repeatability and accuracy. 3,12,16 In the literature, we have seen few studies designed to compare the measurements Plusoptix S08 and an autorefractometer in children and adults. [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21] Aim of the study was to evaluate if Plusoptix S08 could be considered as an autorefractometer or not.…”

“…Though their measurement were not found exactly correct, found compatible with retinoscopy. 1,3,[12][13][14] Based on this information, we just aimed to investigate the correlation of measurements provided by Plusoptix S08 and a standard autorefractor (it was Topcon RM-8000B in our clinic), not to investigate the accuracy of Plusoptix S08. The main question was "May Plusoptix S08 considered as a standard autorefractor?…”

“…21 In two different studies of Matta et al, Plusoptix S04 was also reported as an effective screening tool, because it was found a useful tool for the detection of amblyopia risk factors and showed a high sensitivity of 98.9% and specificity of 96.1%. 12,22 Paff et al evaluated the performance of a hand held autorefractor and PlusoptiX S08 in measuring refractive errors as a vision screener by comparing them with cycloplegic retinoscopy (CR) of 200 children. When compared to CR, the PlusoptiX S08 showed a mean difference of -1.13 ± 1.25 D for spherical equivalent (SE) and -0.23±0.53 D for the cylinder; after cycloplegia -2.11±1.64 D for SE and -0.06±0.47 D for the cylinder were measured.…”