Diana Moganeswari1, Jyothi Thomas2, Krithica Srinivasan3, George P Jacob4. 1. Post Graduate Student, School of Allied Health Sciences SOAHS, Manipal University , Manipal, India . 2. Assistant Professor, Department of Optometry, Selection Grade, SOAHS, Manipal University , Manipal, India . 3. Assistant Professor, Department of Optometry, Senior Scale, SOAHS, Manipal University , Manipal, India . 4. Associate Professor, Department of Community Medicine, Kasturba Medical College , Manipal, India .
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Preschool vision screenings are cost effective ways to detect children with vision impairments. The use of any vision tests in children must be age appropriate, testable, repeatable and valid. AIM: To compare the test re-test reliability, sensitivity and specificity of different visual acuity and stereo acuity charts used in preschool children. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Monocular visual acuity of 90 subjects (180 eyes) of age 36 to 71 months was assessed with HOTV, Lea and E-chart in a preschool located in a semi urban area, Manipal, Karnataka. After the vision assessment, stereo acuity was recorded using Frisby and Titmus stereo charts followed by comprehensive eye examination. Repeated measurements of visual acuity and stereo acuity were done one week after the initial assessment. RESULTS: Mean age of children was 53± 10 months with equal gender distribution. Intra class correlation (ICC) of Lea, HOTV, E-chart, Frisby and Titmus charts were 0.96, 0.99, 0.92, 1.0 and 1.0 respectively. The area under receiver operating curve (ROC) for Lea and E-chart was 0.892 and 0.776. HOTV was considered as the gold standard as it showed the least difference on repeated measurements. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of E-chart was 99, 15, 45, 94 and 21.8 percent, and Lea was 93, 56, 59 and 92 percent. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of Frisby was 75, 27, 9, 92 percent were as of Titmus was 75, 13, 8 and 85 percent respectively. CONCLUSION: HOTV chart can be used as the gold standard for measuring visual acuity of pre-schoolers in a semi urban area. Lea chart can be used in the absence of HOTV chart. Frisby and Titmus charts are good screening tools, but with poor diagnostic criteria.
BACKGROUND: Preschool vision screenings are cost effective ways to detect children with vision impairments. The use of any vision tests in children must be age appropriate, testable, repeatable and valid. AIM: To compare the test re-test reliability, sensitivity and specificity of different visual acuity and stereo acuity charts used in preschool children. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Monocular visual acuity of 90 subjects (180 eyes) of age 36 to 71 months was assessed with HOTV, Lea and E-chart in a preschool located in a semi urban area, Manipal, Karnataka. After the vision assessment, stereo acuity was recorded using Frisby and Titmus stereo charts followed by comprehensive eye examination. Repeated measurements of visual acuity and stereo acuity were done one week after the initial assessment. RESULTS: Mean age of children was 53± 10 months with equal gender distribution. Intra class correlation (ICC) of Lea, HOTV, E-chart, Frisby and Titmus charts were 0.96, 0.99, 0.92, 1.0 and 1.0 respectively. The area under receiver operating curve (ROC) for Lea and E-chart was 0.892 and 0.776. HOTV was considered as the gold standard as it showed the least difference on repeated measurements. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of E-chart was 99, 15, 45, 94 and 21.8 percent, and Lea was 93, 56, 59 and 92 percent. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of Frisby was 75, 27, 9, 92 percent were as of Titmus was 75, 13, 8 and 85 percent respectively. CONCLUSION: HOTV chart can be used as the gold standard for measuring visual acuity of pre-schoolers in a semi urban area. Lea chart can be used in the absence of HOTV chart. Frisby and Titmus charts are good screening tools, but with poor diagnostic criteria.
Authors: J M Holmes; R W Beck; M X Repka; D A Leske; R T Kraker; R C Blair; P S Moke; E E Birch; R A Saunders; R W Hertle; G E Quinn; K A Simons; J M Miller Journal: Arch Ophthalmol Date: 2001-09
Authors: Sean I Chen; Arvind Chandna; Anthony M Norcia; Mark Pettet; Deborah Stone Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Christine Schmucker; Robert Grosselfinger; Rob Riemsma; Gerd Antes; Stefan Lange; Wolf Lagrèze; Jos Kleijnen Journal: BMC Ophthalmol Date: 2009-07-16 Impact factor: 2.209
Authors: Amélia Fernandes Nunes; F Sena; R Calado; A R R Tuna; A P R Gonçalves; P L Monteiro Journal: Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol Date: 2020-09-18 Impact factor: 3.117
Authors: Nicola S Anstice; Robert J Jacobs; Samantha K Simkin; Melissa Thomson; Benjamin Thompson; Andrew V Collins Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-02-02 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Miriam Casares-López; José J Castro-Torres; Sonia Ortiz-Peregrina; Francesco Martino; Carolina Ortiz Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-06-24 Impact factor: 3.390
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