用于学龄前儿童视力筛查的自动筛查设备:PlusoptiX S12C 光筛仪与 retinomax K+3 自动折射仪的比较。

IF 1 Q3 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE
Stephen C Hunter, Donny W Suh, Iliana Molina, Jennifer Espinoza
{"title":"用于学龄前儿童视力筛查的自动筛查设备:PlusoptiX S12C 光筛仪与 retinomax K+3 自动折射仪的比较。","authors":"Stephen C Hunter, Donny W Suh, Iliana Molina, Jennifer Espinoza","doi":"10.3389/fopht.2022.1049622","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Automated vision screening devices such as photoscreeners and autorefractors have been used to accurately identify amblyopia, refractive amblyopia risk factors (ARFs), and refractive error in young children; however, there is conflicting data about the effectiveness of different screening devices. We compared the performance of two commercially available screening devices in preschool children.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Children aged 3 to 5 years attending 5 preschools in Anaheim Elementary School District were screened with the PlusoptiX S12C photoscreener using ROC 3 referral criteria and Retinomax K+3 autorefractor in March 2022. Screened children were offered free cycloplegic eye examinations performed by optometrists on the UCI EyeMobile for Children mobile clinic. Children were evaluated for the presence of refractive ARFs using 2021 American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus age-based referral criteria guidelines for instrument-based screening.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 158 children were screened and 79 children received cycloplegic examinations. At least one refractive ARF was found in 20% of examined children, corresponding to a sensitivity/specificity/positive predictive value (PPV)/negative predictive value (NPV) of 94%/89%/68%/98% for the PlusoptiX and 100%/65%/42%/100% for the Retinomax.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>In detecting refractive ARFs, the PlusoptiX was found to have a higher specificity and PPV while the Retinomax had a higher sensitivity and NPV. While both devices demonstrated a high sensitivity and NPV, we found that the PlusoptiX performed better overall as a screening device for our program as the Retinomax referred too many children.</p>","PeriodicalId":45334,"journal":{"name":"IFLA JOURNAL-INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF LIBRARY ASSOCIATIONS","volume":"49 1","pages":"1049622"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11182206/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Automated screening devices for vision screening in preschool children: A comparison of the PlusoptiX S12C photoscreener and retinomax K+3 autorefractor.\",\"authors\":\"Stephen C Hunter, Donny W Suh, Iliana Molina, Jennifer Espinoza\",\"doi\":\"10.3389/fopht.2022.1049622\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Automated vision screening devices such as photoscreeners and autorefractors have been used to accurately identify amblyopia, refractive amblyopia risk factors (ARFs), and refractive error in young children; however, there is conflicting data about the effectiveness of different screening devices. We compared the performance of two commercially available screening devices in preschool children.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Children aged 3 to 5 years attending 5 preschools in Anaheim Elementary School District were screened with the PlusoptiX S12C photoscreener using ROC 3 referral criteria and Retinomax K+3 autorefractor in March 2022. Screened children were offered free cycloplegic eye examinations performed by optometrists on the UCI EyeMobile for Children mobile clinic. Children were evaluated for the presence of refractive ARFs using 2021 American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus age-based referral criteria guidelines for instrument-based screening.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 158 children were screened and 79 children received cycloplegic examinations. At least one refractive ARF was found in 20% of examined children, corresponding to a sensitivity/specificity/positive predictive value (PPV)/negative predictive value (NPV) of 94%/89%/68%/98% for the PlusoptiX and 100%/65%/42%/100% for the Retinomax.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>In detecting refractive ARFs, the PlusoptiX was found to have a higher specificity and PPV while the Retinomax had a higher sensitivity and NPV. While both devices demonstrated a high sensitivity and NPV, we found that the PlusoptiX performed better overall as a screening device for our program as the Retinomax referred too many children.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45334,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"IFLA JOURNAL-INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF LIBRARY ASSOCIATIONS\",\"volume\":\"49 1\",\"pages\":\"1049622\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11182206/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"IFLA JOURNAL-INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF LIBRARY ASSOCIATIONS\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3389/fopht.2022.1049622\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"IFLA JOURNAL-INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF LIBRARY ASSOCIATIONS","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fopht.2022.1049622","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介:自动视力筛查设备(如照相筛查仪和自动屈光仪)已被用于准确识别幼儿弱视、屈光不正性弱视风险因素(ARF)和屈光不正;然而,关于不同筛查设备的有效性的数据却相互矛盾。我们比较了两种市售筛查设备在学龄前儿童中的表现:方法:2022 年 3 月,我们使用 PlusoptiX S12C 光筛仪和 Retinomax K+3 自动屈光仪,按照 ROC 3 转诊标准对阿纳海姆小学学区 5 所幼儿园的 3 至 5 岁儿童进行了筛查。接受筛查的儿童可获得由 UCI EyeMobile for Children 流动诊所的验光师进行的免费屈光检查。根据 2021 年美国小儿眼科和斜视协会基于年龄的仪器筛查转诊标准指南,对儿童是否存在屈光性 ARF 进行评估:共有 158 名儿童接受了筛查,79 名儿童接受了屈光检查。20%的受检儿童至少发现了一种屈光不正性ARF,PlusoptiX的灵敏度/特异性/阳性预测值(PPV)/阴性预测值(NPV)分别为94%/89%/68%/98%,Retinomax的灵敏度/特异性/阳性预测值(PPV)/阴性预测值(NPV)分别为100%/65%/42%/100%:讨论:在检测屈光性 ARF 方面,PlusoptiX 具有更高的特异性和 PPV,而 Retinomax 具有更高的灵敏度和 NPV。虽然两种设备都具有较高的灵敏度和 NPV,但我们发现 PlusoptiX 作为筛查设备在我们的项目中总体表现更好,因为 Retinomax 转介了太多的儿童。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Automated screening devices for vision screening in preschool children: A comparison of the PlusoptiX S12C photoscreener and retinomax K+3 autorefractor.

Introduction: Automated vision screening devices such as photoscreeners and autorefractors have been used to accurately identify amblyopia, refractive amblyopia risk factors (ARFs), and refractive error in young children; however, there is conflicting data about the effectiveness of different screening devices. We compared the performance of two commercially available screening devices in preschool children.

Methods: Children aged 3 to 5 years attending 5 preschools in Anaheim Elementary School District were screened with the PlusoptiX S12C photoscreener using ROC 3 referral criteria and Retinomax K+3 autorefractor in March 2022. Screened children were offered free cycloplegic eye examinations performed by optometrists on the UCI EyeMobile for Children mobile clinic. Children were evaluated for the presence of refractive ARFs using 2021 American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus age-based referral criteria guidelines for instrument-based screening.

Results: A total of 158 children were screened and 79 children received cycloplegic examinations. At least one refractive ARF was found in 20% of examined children, corresponding to a sensitivity/specificity/positive predictive value (PPV)/negative predictive value (NPV) of 94%/89%/68%/98% for the PlusoptiX and 100%/65%/42%/100% for the Retinomax.

Discussion: In detecting refractive ARFs, the PlusoptiX was found to have a higher specificity and PPV while the Retinomax had a higher sensitivity and NPV. While both devices demonstrated a high sensitivity and NPV, we found that the PlusoptiX performed better overall as a screening device for our program as the Retinomax referred too many children.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
IFLA JOURNAL-INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF LIBRARY ASSOCIATIONS
IFLA JOURNAL-INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF LIBRARY ASSOCIATIONS INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
15.40%
发文量
41
期刊介绍: IFLA Journal is an international journal which publishes original peer reviewed articles, a selection of peer reviewed IFLA conference papers, and news of current IFLA activities. Content is selected to reflect the variety of the international information profession, ranging from freedom of access to information, knowledge management, services to the visually impaired and intellectual property. The IFLA Journal aims to promote and support the aims and core values of IFLA as the global voice of the library and information profession by providing authoritative coverage and analysis of the activities of IFLA and its various constituent bodies and members, and those of other bodies with similar aims and interests.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信