Literature DB >> 27079598

Validation of photoscreening technology in the general pediatrics office: a prospective study.

Jana Bregman1, Sean P Donahue2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Photoscreening instruments have been widely validated in pediatric ophthalmology clinics and field studies; however, validation by general pediatricians is lacking. We performed the first prospective, multisite evaluation of a commercially available photoscreener in the medical home.
METHODS: Eleven practices in Middle Tennessee recruited over 3,100 children between 12 months and 5 years to be screened at well-child examinations. Participants were those who received a "refer" result; controls received a "pass." Referred children received a comprehensive eye examination with cycloplegic retinoscopy. A subset of control children underwent eye examinations in an attempt to determine sensitivity and specificity.
RESULTS: The overall referral rate was 10%. Amblyopia risk factors (ARFs) were confirmed in 47% of referred children, with positive predictive values (PPVs) of 77.8% for suspected hyperopia, 60% for myopia, 50% for anisometropia, and 44.8% for astigmatism by the 2013 guidelines of the American Association of Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus Vision Screening Committee. Using the 2003 guidelines, the overall PPV was 60.3%; PPVs were determined for suspected hyperopia (77.8%), myopia (60%), anisometropia (67.6%), and astigmatism (61.2%). Of referred children who received follow-up, 18 (13.2%) had amblyopia. PPVs for children ≤36 months (n = 79) did not differ from those 37-72 months (n = 57). No child who passed screening and had a follow-up examination had any ARFs.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results replicate those of previously published field studies and support recent United States Preventive Services Task Force and American Academy of Pediatrics position statements. They provide prospective evidence that photoscreening is an effective tool for children aged 12-72 months. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27079598     DOI: 10.1016/j.jaapos.2016.01.004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J AAPOS        ISSN: 1091-8531            Impact factor:   1.220


  6 in total

1.  Difference of refraction values between standard autorefractometry and Plusoptix.

Authors:  Camelia Margareta Bogdănici; Codrina Maria Săndulache; Rodica Vasiliu; Otilia Obadă
Journal:  Rom J Ophthalmol       Date:  2016 Oct-Dec

2.  Validation of the Pediatric Vision Scanner in a normal preschool population.

Authors:  Shaival S Shah; Jennifer J Jimenez; Emily J Rozema; Miki T Nguyen; Melissa Preciado; Ashish M Mehta
Journal:  J AAPOS       Date:  2021-07-10       Impact factor: 1.325

Review 3.  Comparison of the pediatric vision screening program in 18 countries across five continents.

Authors:  Ai-Hong Chen; Nurul Farhana Abu Bakar; Patricia Arthur
Journal:  J Curr Ophthalmol       Date:  2019-09-03

Review 4.  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

5.  A smartphone ocular alignment measurement app in school screening for strabismus.

Authors:  Wenbo Cheng; Marissa H Lynn; Shrinivas Pundlik; Cheryl Almeida; Gang Luo; Kevin Houston
Journal:  BMC Ophthalmol       Date:  2021-03-25       Impact factor: 2.209

6.  Mandated Kindergarten Eye Examinations in a US Suburban Clinic: Is It Worth the Cost?

Authors:  Noha Ekdawi; Michael A Kipp; Matthew P Kipp
Journal:  Clin Ophthalmol       Date:  2021-03-29
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.