Mabel Crescioni1, Joseph M Miller2, Erin M Harvey3. 1. Department of Ophthalmology and Vision Science, The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona; College of Public Health, The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona. Electronic address: mabelc@email.arizona.edu. 2. Department of Ophthalmology and Vision Science, The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona; College of Public Health, The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona; Optical Sciences Center, The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona. 3. Department of Ophthalmology and Vision Science, The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona; College of Public Health, The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy of the Spot (V2.0.16) and Plusoptix S12 (ROC4, V6.1.4.0) photoscreeners in detecting astigmatism meeting AAPOS referral criteria in students from a population with high prevalence of astigmatism. METHODS: Students attending grades 3-8 on the Tohono O'odham reservation were examined. Screening was attempted with both the Spot and Plusoptix photoscreeners. Results were compared to cycloplegic refraction. Screening attempts providing no estimate of refractive error were considered fail/refer. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) for detection of refractive errors were determined using AAPOS referral criteria and receiver operating characteristic area under the curve (ROC AUC) analysis was conducted for measures of astigmatism. Agreement between screening and cycloplegic refraction measurements of astigmatism, spherical equivalent, and anisometropia were assessed using t tests and correlation analyses. RESULTS: A total of 209 students were included. Of the total, 116 (55%) met examination-positive criteria based on cycloplegic refraction, with 105 of those (90%) meeting the criterion for astigmatism. Measurements success rates were 97% for Spot and 54% for Plusoptix. Comparing the Spot and the Plusoptix, sensitivity was 96% versus 100%, specificity was 87% versus 61%, PPV was 90% versus 76%, and NPV was 94% versus 100% for detection of refractive error. Both screeners overestimated astigmatism by 1/3 D to 2/3 D. AUC for astigmatism was 0.97 for Spot and 0.83 for Plusoptix. CONCLUSIONS: In this highly astigmatic population, the Spot and the Plusoptix had similar sensitivity, but the Spot had better specificity and measurement success rates. Compared with results from study samples with lower rates of astigmatism, our results highlight the need to assess the ability of screening instruments to detect individual types of refractive errors.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy of the Spot (V2.0.16) and Plusoptix S12 (ROC4, V6.1.4.0) photoscreeners in detecting astigmatism meeting AAPOS referral criteria in students from a population with high prevalence of astigmatism. METHODS: Students attending grades 3-8 on the Tohono O'odham reservation were examined. Screening was attempted with both the Spot and Plusoptix photoscreeners. Results were compared to cycloplegic refraction. Screening attempts providing no estimate of refractive error were considered fail/refer. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) for detection of refractive errors were determined using AAPOS referral criteria and receiver operating characteristic area under the curve (ROC AUC) analysis was conducted for measures of astigmatism. Agreement between screening and cycloplegic refraction measurements of astigmatism, spherical equivalent, and anisometropia were assessed using t tests and correlation analyses. RESULTS: A total of 209 students were included. Of the total, 116 (55%) met examination-positive criteria based on cycloplegic refraction, with 105 of those (90%) meeting the criterion for astigmatism. Measurements success rates were 97% for Spot and 54% for Plusoptix. Comparing the Spot and the Plusoptix, sensitivity was 96% versus 100%, specificity was 87% versus 61%, PPV was 90% versus 76%, and NPV was 94% versus 100% for detection of refractive error. Both screeners overestimated astigmatism by 1/3 D to 2/3 D. AUC for astigmatism was 0.97 for Spot and 0.83 for Plusoptix. CONCLUSIONS: In this highly astigmatic population, the Spot and the Plusoptix had similar sensitivity, but the Spot had better specificity and measurement success rates. Compared with results from study samples with lower rates of astigmatism, our results highlight the need to assess the ability of screening instruments to detect individual types of refractive errors.
Authors: Ge Wen; Kristina Tarczy-Hornoch; Roberta McKean-Cowdin; Susan A Cotter; Mark Borchert; Jesse Lin; Jeniffer Kim; Rohit Varma Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2013-08-14 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Kristina Tarczy-Hornoch; Rohit Varma; Susan A Cotter; Roberta McKean-Cowdin; Jesse H Lin; Mark S Borchert; Mina Torres; Ge Wen; Stanley P Azen; James M Tielsch; David S Friedman; Michael X Repka; Joanne Katz; Josephine Ibironke; Lydia Giordano Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2011-08-19 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Mae Millicent W Peterseim; Carrie E Papa; M Edward Wilson; Jennifer D Davidson; Maria Shtessel; Mavesh Husain; Edward W Cheeseman; Bethany J Wolf; Rupal Trivedi Journal: J AAPOS Date: 2014-12 Impact factor: 1.220
Authors: Mae Millicent W Peterseim; Carrie E Papa; M Edward Wilson; Edward W Cheeseman; Bethany J Wolf; Jennifer D Davidson; Rupal H Trivedi Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2014-08-01 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Sean P Donahue; Brian Arthur; Daniel E Neely; Robert W Arnold; David Silbert; James B Ruben Journal: J AAPOS Date: 2013-01-27 Impact factor: 1.220
Authors: Chinwe Cynthia Jac-Okereke; Chukwunonso Azubuike Jac-Okereke; Ifeoma Regina Ezegwui; Obiekwe Okoye Journal: J Prim Care Community Health Date: 2020 Jan-Dec
Authors: Robert W Arnold; Samuel J Martin; Joshua R Beveridge; Andrew W Arnold; Stephanie L Arnold; Nathanael R Beveridge; Kyle A Smith Journal: Clin Ophthalmol Date: 2021-08-30