Literature DB >> 20619746

An analysis of vision screening data from New York City public schools.

Marie I Bodack1, Ida Chung, Ira Krumholtz.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This study compares different vision screening batteries and documents the failure rates of different vision tests in children who receive periodic vision screenings.
METHODS: Vision screenings were conducted on 1,992 preschool through fifth grade children attending schools in lower socioeconomic areas in New York City. The screening battery incorporated visual acuity, retinoscopy, cover test, stereopsis, near point of convergence, ocular motility, accommodation, color vision, and ocular health.
RESULTS: Slightly less than one third (30%) of the children screened failed the State University of New York (SUNY) battery and were referred for a comprehensive examination, of which 249 (41%) children actually passed distance visual acuities. The referral rate for distance visual acuity alone was 19%. The referral rate for the Modified Clinical Technique (MCT) was 22%. A greater percentage (33%) of the children in grades kindergarten through fifth were referred compared with the preschoolers (20%). Only a small percentage (8%) of the children wore corrective lenses at the time of testing. There was a significant increase in the prevalence of binocular vision problems found in children from grades kindergarten through 5.
CONCLUSIONS: Poor visual acuity and binocular vision problems exist in schoolchildren despite ongoing vision screenings. The results provide evidence for the necessity of periodic rescreening starting in kindergarten and the importance of screening for hyperopia and binocular vision problems in addition to distance visual acuities. Copyright 2010 American Optometric Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20619746     DOI: 10.1016/j.optm.2010.05.006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Optometry        ISSN: 1558-1527


  11 in total

1.  Comparison of photorefraction, autorefractometry and retinoscopy in children.

Authors:  Goktug Demirci; Banu Arslan; Mustafa Özsütçü; Mustafa Eliaçık; Gokhan Gulkilik
Journal:  Int Ophthalmol       Date:  2013-10-10       Impact factor: 2.031

2.  Why are we not doing retinoscopy in the school eye screening? Is distant visual acuity a sensitive tool for making referrals?

Authors:  Tonmoy Chottopadhyay; Hardeep Kaur; Amit J Shinde; Parikshit M Gogate
Journal:  Saudi J Ophthalmol       Date:  2021-11-17

3.  Visual Profile of Children who Passed or Failed the UK School Vision Screening Protocol.

Authors:  Sara McCullough; Kathryn Saunders
Journal:  Br Ir Orthopt J       Date:  2019-03-26

4.  Visual acuity measures do not reliably detect childhood refractive error--an epidemiological study.

Authors:  Lisa O'Donoghue; Alicja R Rudnicka; Julie F McClelland; Nicola S Logan; Kathryn J Saunders
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-03-28       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Vergence anomalies in a sample of high school students in South Africa.

Authors:  Samuel Otabor Wajuihian; Rekha Hansraj
Journal:  J Optom       Date:  2015-12-30

6.  Recommendation for ophthalmic care in German preschool health examination and its adherence: Results of the prospective cohort study ikidS.

Authors:  Alexander K Schuster; Heike M Elflein; Christiane Diefenbach; Christine Gräf; Jochem König; Martina F Schmidt; Kathleen Schnick-Vollmer; Michael S Urschitz
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-12-03       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Refractive error of Saudi children enrolled in primary school and kindergarten measured with a spot screener.

Authors:  Ziaul Haq Yasir; Nada Almadhi; Salma Tarabzouni; Abdulrahman Alhommadi; Rajiv Khandekar
Journal:  Oman J Ophthalmol       Date:  2019 May-Aug

8.  Missed opportunities: Do states require screening of children for health conditions that interfere with learning?

Authors:  Delaney Gracy; Anupa Fabian; Corey Hannah Basch; Maria Scigliano; Sarah A MacLean; Rachel K MacKenzie; Irwin E Redlener
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-01-17       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Automatic identification of myopia based on ocular appearance images using deep learning.

Authors:  Yahan Yang; Ruiyang Li; Duoru Lin; Xiayin Zhang; Wangting Li; Jinghui Wang; Chong Guo; Jianyin Li; Chuan Chen; Yi Zhu; Lanqin Zhao; Haotian Lin
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2020-06

10.  Comparison of Plusoptix S12R photoscreener with cycloplegic retinoscopy and autorefraction in pediatric age group.

Authors:  Varun Saini; Usha K Raina; Anika Gupta; Jawahar Lal Goyal; Raffat Anjum; Pallavi Saini; Shantanu Kumar Gupta; Prateeksha Sharma
Journal:  Indian J Ophthalmol       Date:  2019-10       Impact factor: 1.848

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.