Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36642243›Full record

ArticleJournal of AAPOS : the official publication of the American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus2023

Effectiveness of the Spot Vision Screener using updated 2021 AAPOS guidelines.

Mae Millicent W Peterseim, Rupal H Trivedi, Savannah Reaves Monahan, Samantha M Smith, James D Bowsher, Anastasia Alex, M Edward Wilson, Bethany J Wolf

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of AAPOS : the official publication of the American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Vision and developmental delay in toddlers.Journal of AAPOS : the official publication of the American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Mae Millicent W PeterseimMedical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina. Electronic address: petersem@musc.edu.
Rupal H TrivediMedical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina.
Savannah Reaves MonahanMedical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina.
Samantha M SmithMedical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina.
James D BowsherMedical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina.
Anastasia AlexMedical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina.
M Edward WilsonMedical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina.
Bethany J WolfMedical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina.

Funding

South Carolina Clinical & Translational Research Institute (SCTR)UL1TR001450 · NCATS · MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA · PI BRADY, KATHLEEN T., FLUME, PATRICK A · 2015 to 2024
$41.1M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001450
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo evaluate the Spot Vision Screener according to updated 2021 AAPOS Vision Screening Committee guidelines for instrument-based pediatric vision screen validation.

methodsAs part of an IRB-approved ongoing prospective study, children were screened with the Spot prior to a complete examination.

resultsSpot screening was successful in 1,036 of 1,090 children (95%). Forty-eight percent of participants were referred for further screening using the Spot manufacturer guidelines, and 40% of all children were found to have a 2021 amblyopia risk factor or visually significant refractive error by gold standard examination. The Spot recommendation compared reasonably well to the 2021 criteria, with an overall sensitivity of 0.88 and a specificity of 0.78. Applying updated guidelines to the Spot for hyperopia, anisometropia, and astigmatism yielded moderate-to-poor sensitivity (0.27-0.77) but excellent specificity (>0.9). The area under the curve of the receiver operating characteristic analysis demonstrates overall good prediction performance for the Spot for each diagnosis-myopia, hyperopia, astigmatism, anisometropia (range, 0.87-0.97). Results of our study suggest increasing the instrument referral criterion for astigmatism from 1.5 D (manufacturer thresholds of the screener used in this study) to 2 D in older children. Decreasing the anisometropia cut-off from 1 D to 0.75 D would improve sensitivity from 0.59 to >0.8.

conclusionsIn our study population, the overall predictive ability of the Spot is good, with a sensitivity of 0.88 and a specificity of 0.78. We recommend specific device refractive referral criteria to maximize screening effectiveness using the updated AAPOS guidelines.

Indexed as

AmblyopiaAnisometropiaAstigmatismHyperopiaRefractive ErrorsVision ScreeningChildHumansProspective StudiesSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID36642243
PMCPMC10251219

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.