Literature DB >> 16856779

A comparison of patched HOTV visual acuity and photoscreening.

Rachel Leman1, Michelle M Clausen, Janice Bates, Lee Stark, Koni K Arnold, Robert W Arnold.   

Abstract

Early detection of significant vision problems in children is a high priority for pediatricians and school nurses. Routine vision screening is a necessary part of that detection and has traditionally involved acuity charts. However, photoscreening in which "red eye" is elicited to show whether each eye is focusing may outperform routine acuity testing in pediatric offices and schools. This study compares portable acuity testing with photoscreening of preschoolers, kindergarteners, and 1st-graders in 21 elementary schools. School nurses performed enhanced patched acuity testing and two types of photoscreening in a portable tent. Nearly 1,700 children were screened during spring semester 2004, and 14% had confirmatory exams by community eye care professionals. The results indicate that one form of photoscreening using a Gateway DV-S20 digital camera is significantly more sensitive to children with significant vision problems, as well as being the most cost effective (85% specificity and only $0.11 per child). This suggests that the adaptation of photoscreening into a routine vision screening protocol would be beneficial for efficiently detecting vision problems that could lead to amblyopia.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16856779     DOI: 10.1177/10598405050220040901

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Sch Nurs        ISSN: 1059-8405            Impact factor:   2.835


  9 in total

1.  Vision screening in infants, children and youth.

Authors: 
Journal:  Paediatr Child Health       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 2.253

2.  Comparison of non-cycloplegic photorefraction, cycloplegic photorefraction and cycloplegic retinoscopy in children.

Authors:  Ozdemir Ozdemir; Zuhal Özen Tunay; Ikbal Seza Petriçli; Damla Ergintürk Acar; Muhammet Kazım Erol
Journal:  Int J Ophthalmol       Date:  2015-02-18       Impact factor: 1.779

3.  Is noncycloplegic photorefraction applicable for screening refractive amblyopia risk factors?

Authors:  Zhale Rajavi; Hiva Parsafar; Alireza Ramezani; Mehdi Yaseri
Journal:  J Ophthalmic Vis Res       Date:  2012-01

4.  Portable acuity screening for any school: validation of patched HOTV with amblyopic patients and Bangerter normals.

Authors:  Maya Tsao Wu; M Diane Armitage; Claire Trujillo; Anna Trujillo; Laura E Arnold; Lauren Tsao Wu; Robert W Arnold
Journal:  BMC Ophthalmol       Date:  2017-12-04       Impact factor: 2.209

Review 5.  Scope and costs of autorefraction and photoscreening for childhood amblyopia-a systematic narrative review in relation to the EUSCREEN project data.

Authors:  Anna M Horwood; Helen J Griffiths; Jill Carlton; Paolo Mazzone; Arinder Channa; Mandy Nordmann; Huibert J Simonsz
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2020-11-30       Impact factor: 3.775

6.  Pediatric Non-Refractive Vision Screening with EyeSwift, PDI Check and Blinq: Non-Refractive Vision Screening with Two Binocular Video Games and Birefringent Scanning.

Authors:  Tsaina Mahlen; Robert W Arnold
Journal:  Clin Ophthalmol       Date:  2022-02-11

7.  Multifaceted Amblyopia Screening with blinq, 2WIN, and PDI Check.

Authors:  Robert Arnold; Mario Angi
Journal:  Clin Ophthalmol       Date:  2022-02-15

8.  Comparative Validation of PlusoptiX and AI-Optic Photoscreeners in Children with High Amblyopia Risk Factor Prevalence.

Authors:  Robert W Arnold
Journal:  Clin Ophthalmol       Date:  2022-08-16

9.  Compared Near-Vision Testing With the Nintendo 3DS PDI Check Game on the Thai-Burma Border.

Authors:  Samuel J Martin; Kayla S Rowe; Nay Hser; Hser Eh Htoo; Ray Khin; Kyle A Smith; Robert W Arnold
Journal:  Asia Pac J Ophthalmol (Phila)       Date:  2019 Jul-Aug
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.