| Literature DB >> 27555744 |
Irene Sanchez1, Sara Ortiz-Toquero1, Raul Martin2, Victoria de Juan3.
Abstract
Amblyopia detection is important to ensure proper visual development and avoid permanent decrease of visual acuity. This condition does not produce symptoms, so it is difficult to diagnose if a vision problem actually exists. However, because amblyopia treatment is limited by age, early diagnosis is of paramount relevance. Traditional vision screening (conducted in <3 years) is related with difficulty in getting cooperation from a subject to conduct the eye exam, so accurate objective methods to improve amblyopia detection are necessary. Handheld devices used for photoscreening or autorefraction could offer advantages to improve amblyopia screening because they reduce exploration time to just few seconds, no subject collaboration is needed, and they provide objective information. The purpose of this review is to summarize the main functions and clinical applicability of commercially available devices for early detection of amblyopia and to describe their differences, advantages, and limitations. Although the studies reviewed are heterogeneous (due to wide differences in referral criteria, use of different risk factors, different types of samples studied, etc), these devices provide objective measures in a quick and objective way with a simple outcome report: retest, pass, or refer. However, due to major limitations, these devices are not recommended, and their use in clinical practice is limited.Entities:
Keywords: amblyopia screening; binocular autorefraction; handheld photoscreener; photoscreening
Year: 2016 PMID: 27555744 PMCID: PMC4969043 DOI: 10.2147/OPTH.S93714
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Clin Ophthalmol ISSN: 1177-5467
Overview of the main characteristics of the photoscreeners
| Measurement distance | One meter in front of the child |
| Illumination | Scotopic |
| Correction | Without correction |
| Fixation stimuli | Flashes lights or noises |
| Measurement time | <5 seconds |
| Pupil state | Undilated |
| Significant refractive error | |
| Anisocoria | |
| Anisometropia | |
| Pupillary centers discrepant >10° | |
| Ptosis | |
Accuracy indexes detecting risk factors for refractive amblyopia with different commercial devices in comparison with traditional exploration or other devices
| Device | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | Data success (%) | Accuracy rate (%) | PPV (%) | NPV (%) | FP (%) | FN (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MTI | 81 | 81 | 94 | 81 | – | – | – | – |
| PowerRefractor | ||||||||
| PowerRefractor II | ||||||||
| Plusoptix CR03 | 97.9 | 70.6 | – | – | 97.3 | 75 | – | – |
| Plusoptix S04 | 98 | 88 | – | – | 90 | – | – | 1.5 |
| 99 | 82 | – | – | 86 | – | 18 | 1.2 | |
| Plusoptix A09 | 89 | 80 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| 94.9 | 67.5 | – | – | – | – | – | – | |
| 85 | 73 | – | 82 | 78 | 81 | – | – | |
| Plusoptix S12 | 100 | 61 | 54 | – | 76 | 100 | – | – |
| 91 | 71 | – | 84 | 81 | 85 | – | – | |
| iScreen | 87 | 76 | – | 81 | – | – | – | – |
| Spot | 78 | 59 | – | 74 | 74 | 65 | – | – |
| Spot v1.0.3 | 89 | 71 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Spot v2.0.16 | 87.7 | 75.9 | 91 | – | 48 | 96 | – | – |
| 92.6 | 90.6 | – | – | 58.1 | 98.9 | – | – | |
| 96 | 87 | 97 | – | 90 | 94 | – | – | |
| Spot v1.151 | 88.1 | 71.9 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| 2WIN | 71 | 67 | – | 71 | 76 | 62 | – | – |
| 73 | 76 | – | 76 | 80 | 67 | – | – | |
Notes: Different referral criteria might be used in each instrument. The values of Plusoptix CR03 are accuracy indexes for detection of cylindrical power with cyclopegic retinoscopy and those of Spot v2.0.16 are the accuracy indexes for detection of refractive error.
Abbreviations: PPV, positive predictive value; NPV, negative predictive value; FP, false positive; FN, false negative.