Alex R Kemper1, Lisa M Keating, Jorie L Jackson, Erika M Levin. 1. Child Health Evaluation and Research Unit, Division of General Pediatrics, University of Michigan, 6E08-300 North Ingalls Boulevard, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-0456, USA. kempera@med.umich.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Monocular autorefraction is a newly available technology for vision screening that has been advocated to test young children. Such devices automatically determine the refractive state of each eye, but cannot directly detect amblyopia or strabismus. OBJECTIVE: To compare the results of a commercially available monocular autorefractor (SureSight; Welch Allyn Medical Products, Skaneateles Falls, NY) with findings from a comprehensive eye examination for significant refractive error, strabismus, and amblyopia. METHODS: Children 5 years and younger who were new patients attending a pediatric ophthalmology clinic were tested with the monocular autorefractor without dilation and underwent a comprehensive eye examination that included dilation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The proportion of children who could be tested and the sensitivity and specificity of the screening. RESULTS: Of the 170 children enrolled (age, <3 years, n = 80; age range, 3-5 years, n = 90), 36% had abnormal eye examination findings. Most (84%) children 3 years or older could be tested compared with 49% of the children younger than 3 years (P<.001). Among those who were testable, for children younger than 3 years the sensitivity was 80% (95% confidence interval [CI], 44%-97%) and the specificity was 41% (95% CI, 24%-61%). For children aged 3 to 5 years, the sensitivity was 88% (95% CI, 68%-97%) and the specificity was 58% (95% CI, 43%-71%). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that screening children aged 3 to 5 years with monocular autorefraction would identify most cases of visual impairment but would be associated with many false-positive results. For children younger than 3 years, testability was low and results were nonspecific.
BACKGROUND: Monocular autorefraction is a newly available technology for vision screening that has been advocated to test young children. Such devices automatically determine the refractive state of each eye, but cannot directly detect amblyopia or strabismus. OBJECTIVE: To compare the results of a commercially available monocular autorefractor (SureSight; Welch Allyn Medical Products, Skaneateles Falls, NY) with findings from a comprehensive eye examination for significant refractive error, strabismus, and amblyopia. METHODS:Children 5 years and younger who were new patients attending a pediatric ophthalmology clinic were tested with the monocular autorefractor without dilation and underwent a comprehensive eye examination that included dilation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The proportion of children who could be tested and the sensitivity and specificity of the screening. RESULTS: Of the 170 children enrolled (age, <3 years, n = 80; age range, 3-5 years, n = 90), 36% had abnormal eye examination findings. Most (84%) children 3 years or older could be tested compared with 49% of the children younger than 3 years (P<.001). Among those who were testable, for children younger than 3 years the sensitivity was 80% (95% confidence interval [CI], 44%-97%) and the specificity was 41% (95% CI, 24%-61%). For children aged 3 to 5 years, the sensitivity was 88% (95% CI, 68%-97%) and the specificity was 58% (95% CI, 43%-71%). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that screening children aged 3 to 5 years with monocular autorefraction would identify most cases of visual impairment but would be associated with many false-positive results. For children younger than 3 years, testability was low and results were nonspecific.
Authors: Marjean Taylor Kulp; Gui-Shuang Ying; Jiayan Huang; Maureen Maguire; Graham Quinn; Elise B Ciner; Lynn A Cyert; Deborah A Orel-Bixler; Bruce D Moore Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2014-03-06 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Erin M Harvey; Velma Dobson; Joseph M Miller; Candice E Clifford-Donaldson; Tina K Green; Dawn H Messer; Katherine A Garvey Journal: J AAPOS Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 1.220
Authors: Reed M Jost; Susan E Yanni; Cynthia L Beauchamp; David R Stager; David Stager; Lori Dao; Eileen E Birch Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2014-07 Impact factor: 7.389
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: Victoria Pueyo; Teresa Pérez-Roche; Esther Prieto; Olimpia Castillo; Inmaculada Gonzalez; Adrian Alejandre; Xian Pan; Alvaro Fanlo-Zarazaga; Juan Pinilla; Jose Ignacio Echevarria; Diego Gutierrez; Irene Altemir; María Romero-Sanz; Marta Cipres; Marta Ortin; Belen Masia Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-02-17 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Franziska G Rauscher; Heike Lange; Maryam Yahiaoui-Doktor; Helmut Tegetmeyer; Ina Sterker; Andreas Hinz; Siegfried Wahl; Peter Wiedemann; Arne Ohlendorf; Ralf Blendowske Journal: Optom Vis Sci Date: 2019-11 Impact factor: 1.973