INTRODUCTION: With a prevalence of 3-5%, amblyopia represents a major public health problem. Effective treatment depends on early detection, and a broad consensus of professional opinion supports vision screening of infants and young children. No single method of screening has been demonstrated to be superior in detecting amblyopia and all methods have significant limitations. METHODS: We assessed a new, "child-friendly" visual evoked potential (VEP) system (ENFANTtrade mark II, Diopsys Corp., Metuchen, NJ) for use in screening. We studied 122 children, aged 6 months to 5 years, comparing test results in a masked fashion to results of standard ophthalmologic examinations. A statistical program analyzed VEP differences between fellow eyes to determine a "pass" or "fail" for each child. For verbal patients, clinical amblyopia was defined as an interocular difference of two or more lines in best-corrected visual acuity. For preverbal patients, clinical amblyopia was defined by the clinician's decision to treat with occlusion or atropine penalization. Preverbal children with significant refractive errors or structural eye pathology were also considered clinically abnormal. RESULTS: The test was completed by 94% of the study group, each child requiring an average of 10 minutes to complete testing of both eyes. The sensitivity was 0.973, the specificity 0.808, the positive predictive value 0.706, and the negative predictive value 0.984. CONCLUSION: With its easy electrode placement and rapid, attractive stimulus, the new system overcomes technical difficulties which were associated with older VEP techniques. The test shows promise as a screening tool for detecting amblyopia and other visual deficits in young children.
INTRODUCTION: With a prevalence of 3-5%, amblyopia represents a major public health problem. Effective treatment depends on early detection, and a broad consensus of professional opinion supports vision screening of infants and young children. No single method of screening has been demonstrated to be superior in detecting amblyopia and all methods have significant limitations. METHODS: We assessed a new, "child-friendly" visual evoked potential (VEP) system (ENFANTtrade mark II, Diopsys Corp., Metuchen, NJ) for use in screening. We studied 122 children, aged 6 months to 5 years, comparing test results in a masked fashion to results of standard ophthalmologic examinations. A statistical program analyzed VEP differences between fellow eyes to determine a "pass" or "fail" for each child. For verbal patients, clinical amblyopia was defined as an interocular difference of two or more lines in best-corrected visual acuity. For preverbal patients, clinical amblyopia was defined by the clinician's decision to treat with occlusion or atropine penalization. Preverbal children with significant refractive errors or structural eye pathology were also considered clinically abnormal. RESULTS: The test was completed by 94% of the study group, each child requiring an average of 10 minutes to complete testing of both eyes. The sensitivity was 0.973, the specificity 0.808, the positive predictive value 0.706, and the negative predictive value 0.984. CONCLUSION: With its easy electrode placement and rapid, attractive stimulus, the new system overcomes technical difficulties which were associated with older VEP techniques. The test shows promise as a screening tool for detecting amblyopia and other visual deficits in young children.
Authors: Michael Waisbourd; Rebekah H Gensure; Ardalan Aminlari; Sonya B Shah; Nitasha Khanna; Neil Sood; Jeanne Molineaux; Alberto Gonzalez; Jonathan S Myers; L Jay Katz Journal: Int J Ophthalmol Date: 2017-02-18 Impact factor: 1.779
Authors: Celso Tello; Carlos Gustavo V De Moraes; Tiago S Prata; Peter Derr; Jayson Patel; John Siegfried; Jeffrey M Liebmann; Robert Ritch Journal: Doc Ophthalmol Date: 2010-01-29 Impact factor: 2.379
Authors: Hassan Hashemi; Abbasali Yekta; Ebrahim Jafarzadehpur; Hadi Ostadimoghaddam; Amir Asharlous; Payam Nabovati; Mehdi Khabazkhoob Journal: Iran J Public Health Date: 2017-02 Impact factor: 1.429
Authors: Daniela Martini; Augusto Innocenti; Chiara Cosentino; Giorgio Bedogni; Donato Angelino; Beatrice Biasini; Ivana Zavaroni; Marco Ventura; Daniela Galli; Prisco Mirandola; Marco Vitale; Alessandra Dei Cas; Riccardo C Bonadonna; Giovanni Passeri; Carlo Pruneti; Daniele Del Rio Journal: Nutrients Date: 2018-02-14 Impact factor: 5.717