Instrument-Based Pediatric Vision Screening Policy Statement

Ruben, James B.; Granet, David B.; Blocker, Richard J.; Bradford, G. E.; Karr, Daniel J.; Lueder, Gregg T.; Lehman, Sharon S.; Siatkowski, R. Michael; Hammer, Lawrence D.; Barden, Graham A.; Brown, Oscar W.; Curry, Edward S.; Laughlin, James J.; Lessin, Herschel R.; Rodgers, Chadwick T.; Simon, Geoffrey R.

doi:10.1542/peds.2012-2548

Cited by 98 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Instrument-based screening is quick and requires minimal cooperation of the child; therefore, children younger than 4 years old can benefit from this method 4 . The plusoptiX photoscreener, a newly designed screening tool, can assess both eyes simultaneously and is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pediatric vision screening using the plusoptiX A12C photoscreener in Chinese preschool children aged 3 to 4 years

Huang

Chen

Zhang

et al. 2017

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study evaluated the performance of plusoptiX A12C in detecting amblyopia risk factors (ARFs) in Chinese children aged 3-to-4-year. PlusoptiX examination was successfully conducted among 1,766 subjects without cycloplegia to detect refractive error, asymmetry and media opacity. Cycloplegic retinoscopy (CR) was conducted on 357 children suspected of having vision abnormalities. Statistical differences between CR and the device were confirmed using the mean spherical value (+1.41 ± 0.87 D versus +1.14 ± 0.81 D), cylindrical value (−0.47 ± 0.64 versus −0.84 ± 0.78) and spherical equivalent (SE) value (+1.17 ± 0.84 D versus +0.72 ± 0.64 D) (all P < 0.0001). In the emmetropia group, the differences were statistically significant for the cylinder and SE (all P < 0.0001) but not the sphere (P = 0.33). In the hyperopia group, the differences were statistically significant for the sphere, cylinder and SE (all P < 0.0001). For refractive and strabismic ARFs detection, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were calculated, respectively.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pediatric vision screening using the plusoptiX A12C photoscreener in Chinese preschool children aged 3 to 4 years

Huang

Chen

Zhang

et al. 2017

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…1 Because they require minimal subject cooperation, vision screening instruments have the potential to be useful in detecting amblyopia risk factors in infants, toddlers, preschoolers, and nonverbal children. The results of studies evaluating two currently commercially available photoscreeners, the Spot (PediaVision Holdings LLC, Lake Mary FL; now available from Welch Allyn Inc, Skaneateles Falls, NY) and the Plusoptix S12 (Plusoptix Inc, Atlanta GA), in screening for amblyogenic risk factors have been generally positive.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy of the Spot and Plusoptix photoscreeners for detection of astigmatism

Crescioni

Miller

Harvey

2015

Journal of American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To evaluate the accuracy of the Spot (V2.0.16) and Plusoptix S12 (ROC4, V6.1.4.0) photoscreeners in detecting astigmatism meeting AAPOS referral criteria in students from a population with high prevalence of astigmatism. Methods Students attending grades 3–8 on the Tohono O’odham reservation were examined. Screening was attempted with both the Spot and Plusoptix photoscreeners. Results were compared to cycloplegic refraction. Screening attempts providing no estimate of refractive error were considered fail/refer. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) for detection of refractive errors were determined using AAPOS referral criteria and receiver operating characteristic area under the curve (ROC AUC) analysis was conducted for measures of astigmatism. Agreement between screening and cycloplegic refraction measurements of astigmatism, spherical equivalent, and anisometropia were assessed using t tests and correlation analyses. Results A total of 209 students were included. Of the total, 116 (55%) met examination-positive criteria based on cycloplegic refraction, with 105 of those (90%) meeting the criterion for astigmatism. Measurements success rates were 97% for Spot and 54% for Plusoptix. Comparing the Spot and the Plusoptix, sensitivity was 96% versus 100%, specificity was 87% versus 61%, PPV was 90% versus 76%, and NPV was 94% versus 100% for detection of refractive error. Both screeners overestimated astigmatism by 1/3 D to 2/3 D. AUC for astigmatism was 0.97 for Spot and 0.83 for Plusoptix. Conclusions In this highly astigmatic population, the Spot and the Plusoptix had similar sensitivity, but the Spot had better specificity and measurement success rates. Compared with results from study samples with lower rates of astigmatism, our results highlight the need to assess the ability of screening instruments to detect individual types of refractive errors.

show abstract

“…2 Although the Spot Vision Screener 3 (Welch Allyn, Skaneateles Falls, NY) is marketed to schools, 4,5 there are few published reports evaluating its effectiveness. 6-8 Silbert and Matta 9 recently reported their experience using the Spot with the original software (v. 1.0.3), noting that performance would be expected to improve with future criteria modifications and improved software.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The effectiveness of the Spot Vision Screener in detecting amblyopia risk factors

Peterseim

Papa

Wilson

et al. 2014

Journal of American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The purpose of this study was to evaluate the updated Spot Vision Screener (PediaVision, Welch Allyn, Skaneateles Falls, NY) in detecting amblyopia risk factors using the 2013 guidelines of the American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus (AAPOS). Methods In this prospective study, patients seen from June 2012 to November 2013 were tested with the Spot prior to examination by a pediatric ophthalmologist who was masked to test results. The following data were analyzed: age, subject testability, examination findings, and systemic and ocular pathology. Children were divided into three age groups to determine gold standard results according to the AAPOS guidelines. Results A total of 444 children (average age, 72 months) were included. Compared to the ophthalmologist's examination, the Spot sensitivity was 87.7% and the specificity was 75.9% in detecting amblyopia risk factors. There were no significant differences in sensitivity between the age groups, although the positive predictive value improved in the older age groups. Conclusions In our study cohort, the Spot provided good specificity and sensitivity in detecting amblyopia risk factors according 2013 AAPOS criteria, with minor improvements with updated versions.

show abstract

Instrument-Based Pediatric Vision Screening Policy Statement

Cited by 98 publications

References 13 publications

Pediatric vision screening using the plusoptiX A12C photoscreener in Chinese preschool children aged 3 to 4 years

Pediatric vision screening using the plusoptiX A12C photoscreener in Chinese preschool children aged 3 to 4 years

Accuracy of the Spot and Plusoptix photoscreeners for detection of astigmatism

The effectiveness of the Spot Vision Screener in detecting amblyopia risk factors

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About