ArticleJournal of AAPOS : the official publication of the American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus2015
High specificity of the Pediatric Vision Scanner in a private pediatric primary care setting.
Article in Journal of AAPOS : the official publication of the American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- A novel device for assessment of amblyopic risk factors in preverbal and verbal children-a pilot study.Eye (London, England) · 2022Article
- Evaluation of the Blinq Vision Screener in the Detection of Amblyopia and Strabismus in Children.Translational vision science & technology · 2022Article
- Recent Advances in Screening and Treatment for Amblyopia.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2021Review
- Validation of the Pediatric Vision Scanner in a normal preschool population.Journal of AAPOS : the official publication of the American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus · 2021Article
- Choosing appropriate tools and referral criteria for vision screening of children aged 4-5 years in Canada: a quantitative analysis.BMJ open · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo determine the specificity of the Pediatric Vision Scanner, a binocular retinal birefringence scanner, in its intended setting, a pediatric primary care office.
methodsA 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).
resultsBased 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.
conclusionsThe 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.