PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
UNASSIGNED: Automated vision screening devices such as photoscreeners and autorefractors have been used to accurately identify amblyopia, refractive amblyopia risk factors (ARFs), and refractive error in young children; however, there is conflicting data about the effectiveness of different screening devices. We compared the performance of two commercially available screening devices in preschool children.
UNASSIGNED: Children aged 3 to 5 years attending 5 preschools in Anaheim Elementary School District were screened with the PlusoptiX S12C photoscreener using ROC 3 referral criteria and Retinomax K+3 autorefractor in March 2022. Screened children were offered free cycloplegic eye examinations performed by optometrists on the UCI EyeMobile for Children mobile clinic. Children were evaluated for the presence of refractive ARFs using 2021 American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus age-based referral criteria guidelines for instrument-based screening.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 158 children were screened and 79 children received cycloplegic examinations. At least one refractive ARF was found in 20% of examined children, corresponding to a sensitivity/specificity/positive predictive value (PPV)/negative predictive value (NPV) of 94%/89%/68%/98% for the PlusoptiX and 100%/65%/42%/100% for the Retinomax.
UNASSIGNED: In detecting refractive ARFs, the PlusoptiX was found to have a higher specificity and PPV while the Retinomax had a higher sensitivity and NPV. While both devices demonstrated a high sensitivity and NPV, we found that the PlusoptiX performed better overall as a screening device for our program as the Retinomax referred too many children.
UNASSIGNED: Children aged 3 to 5 years attending 5 preschools in Anaheim Elementary School District were screened with the PlusoptiX S12C photoscreener using ROC 3 referral criteria and Retinomax K+3 autorefractor in March 2022. Screened children were offered free cycloplegic eye examinations performed by optometrists on the UCI EyeMobile for Children mobile clinic. Children were evaluated for the presence of refractive ARFs using 2021 American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus age-based referral criteria guidelines for instrument-based screening.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 158 children were screened and 79 children received cycloplegic examinations. At least one refractive ARF was found in 20% of examined children, corresponding to a sensitivity/specificity/positive predictive value (PPV)/negative predictive value (NPV) of 94%/89%/68%/98% for the PlusoptiX and 100%/65%/42%/100% for the Retinomax.
UNASSIGNED: In detecting refractive ARFs, the PlusoptiX was found to have a higher specificity and PPV while the Retinomax had a higher sensitivity and NPV. While both devices demonstrated a high sensitivity and NPV, we found that the PlusoptiX performed better overall as a screening device for our program as the Retinomax referred too many children.
摘要：
■自动视力筛查设备，如遮光仪和自动验光仪，已用于准确识别弱视，屈光弱视危险因素（ARFs），和幼儿的屈光不正；然而，关于不同筛查设备的有效性存在相互矛盾的数据。我们比较了两种市售筛查设备在学龄前儿童中的性能。
■2022年3月，使用ROC3推荐标准和RetinomaxK3自动验光仪，对在阿纳海姆小学区就读5所幼儿园的3至5岁儿童进行了筛查。验光师在UCIEyeMobileforChildren移动诊所为筛查的儿童提供免费的睫状肌麻痹眼科检查。使用2021年美国儿科眼科和斜视协会基于年龄的转诊标准指南对儿童的屈光ARF的存在进行了评估。
■共有158名儿童接受了筛查，79名儿童接受了睫状肌麻痹检查。在20%的被检查儿童中至少发现了一个屈光性ARF，相应的敏感性/特异性/阳性预测值（PPV）/阴性预测值（NPV）对于PlusoptiX为94%/89%/68%/98%，对于Retinomax为100%/65%/42%/100%。
■在检测屈光性ARF时，发现PlusoptiX具有更高的特异性和PPV，而Retinomax具有更高的敏感性和NPV。虽然这两种设备都表现出高灵敏度和净现值，我们发现PlusoptiX作为我们项目的筛查设备总体上表现更好,因为Retinomax引用了太多儿童.
■2022年3月，使用ROC3推荐标准和RetinomaxK3自动验光仪，对在阿纳海姆小学区就读5所幼儿园的3至5岁儿童进行了筛查。验光师在UCIEyeMobileforChildren移动诊所为筛查的儿童提供免费的睫状肌麻痹眼科检查。使用2021年美国儿科眼科和斜视协会基于年龄的转诊标准指南对儿童的屈光ARF的存在进行了评估。
■共有158名儿童接受了筛查，79名儿童接受了睫状肌麻痹检查。在20%的被检查儿童中至少发现了一个屈光性ARF，相应的敏感性/特异性/阳性预测值（PPV）/阴性预测值（NPV）对于PlusoptiX为94%/89%/68%/98%，对于Retinomax为100%/65%/42%/100%。
■在检测屈光性ARF时，发现PlusoptiX具有更高的特异性和PPV，而Retinomax具有更高的敏感性和NPV。虽然这两种设备都表现出高灵敏度和净现值，我们发现PlusoptiX作为我们项目的筛查设备总体上表现更好,因为Retinomax引用了太多儿童.
