Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38983509›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in ophthalmology2022

Automated screening devices for vision screening in preschool children: A comparison of the PlusoptiX S12C photoscreener and retinomax K+3 autorefractor.

Stephen C Hunter, Donny W Suh, Iliana Molina, Jennifer Espinoza

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in ophthalmology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Stephen C HunterUniversity of California Riverside School of Medicine, Riverside, CA, United States.
Donny W SuhDepartment of Ophthalmology, Gavin Herbert Eye Institute, University of California Irvine School of Medicine, Irvine, CA, United States.
Iliana MolinaDepartment of Ophthalmology, Gavin Herbert Eye Institute, University of California Irvine School of Medicine, Irvine, CA, United States.
Jennifer EspinozaDepartment of Ophthalmology, Gavin Herbert Eye Institute, University of California Irvine School of Medicine, Irvine, CA, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

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.

Indexed as

amblyopiaamblyopia risk factorautorefractorchildrenphotoscreenerrefractive errorvision screening

Identifiers

PMID38983509
PMCPMC11182206

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.