Reed M Jost1, David Stager2, Lori Dao2, Scott Katz3, Russ McDonald3, Eileen E Birch4. 1. Retina Foundation of the Southwest, Dallas, Texas. Electronic address: reedjost@retinafoundation.org. 2. Center for Pediatric Ophthalmology & Adult Strabismus, Plano, Texas. 3. Plano Pediatrics, PA, Plano, Texas. 4. Retina Foundation of the Southwest, Dallas, Texas; Department of Ophthalmology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine the specificity of the Pediatric Vision Scanner, a binocular retinal birefringence scanner, in its intended setting, a pediatric primary care office. METHODS: A total of 102 preschool children (age 2-6 years) were screened during a well-child pediatric visit using the Pediatric Vision Scanner and the SureSight Autorefractor and completed a masked comprehensive pediatric ophthalmic examination (gold standard examination). RESULTS: Based on the gold standard examination, one child had anisometropic amblyopia, and the remaining 101 had no amblyopia or strabismus. Specificity of the Pediatric Vision Scanner was 90% (95% CI, 82%-95%) while specificity of the SureSight was 87% (95%CI, 79-93%). Combining these results with the sensitivity of the devices determined in our previous study conducted in a pediatric ophthalmology office setting, the positive likelihood ratio for the Pediatric Vision Scanner was 10.2; for the SureSight, 5.0. The negative likelihood ratio for the Pediatric Vision Scanner was 0.03; for the SureSight, 0.42, a significant difference. CONCLUSIONS: The Pediatric Vision Scanner had high specificity (90%) in screening for amblyopia and strabismus as part of a pediatric well-child visit. Likelihood ratio analysis suggests that affected children have a high probability of being correctly identified by the Pediatric Vision Scanner. The high level of confidence conferred by Pediatric Vision Scanner screening may remove an important barrier to vision screening in pediatric primary care.
PURPOSE: To determine the specificity of the Pediatric Vision Scanner, a binocular retinal birefringence scanner, in its intended setting, a pediatric primary care office. METHODS: A total of 102 preschool children (age 2-6 years) were screened during a well-child pediatric visit using the Pediatric Vision Scanner and the SureSight Autorefractor and completed a masked comprehensive pediatric ophthalmic examination (gold standard examination). RESULTS: Based on the gold standard examination, one child had anisometropic amblyopia, and the remaining 101 had no amblyopia or strabismus. Specificity of the Pediatric Vision Scanner was 90% (95% CI, 82%-95%) while specificity of the SureSight was 87% (95%CI, 79-93%). Combining these results with the sensitivity of the devices determined in our previous study conducted in a pediatric ophthalmology office setting, the positive likelihood ratio for the Pediatric Vision Scanner was 10.2; for the SureSight, 5.0. The negative likelihood ratio for the Pediatric Vision Scanner was 0.03; for the SureSight, 0.42, a significant difference. CONCLUSIONS: The Pediatric Vision Scanner had high specificity (90%) in screening for amblyopia and strabismus as part of a pediatric well-child visit. Likelihood ratio analysis suggests that affected children have a high probability of being correctly identified by the Pediatric Vision Scanner. The high level of confidence conferred by Pediatric Vision Scanner screening may remove an important barrier to vision screening in pediatric primary care.
Authors: Zhuo Su; Elizabeth K Marvin; Bing Q Wang; Tavé van Zyl; Maxwell D Elia; Esteban N Garza; Daniel J Salchow; Susan H Forster Journal: J AAPOS Date: 2013-08 Impact factor: 1.220
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: 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: 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: Kristina Tarczy-Hornoch; Susan A Cotter; Mark Borchert; Roberta McKean-Cowdin; Jesse Lin; Ge Wen; Jeniffer Kim; Rohit Varma Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2013-04-03 Impact factor: 12.079