Observational studyOphthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists)2025
Validation of the PlusOptix S12C for detecting amblyopia risk factors in a tertiary care young paediatric population.
Observational study in Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Validation of the PlusOptix S12C for detecting amblyopia risk factors in a tertiary care young paediatric population.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2025Observational
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of the PlusOptix S12C device in detecting amblyopia risk factors (ARFs) in children aged 2-7 years, in accordance with the 2020 Israeli Ministry of Health (MOH) directives and the 2021 American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus (AAPOS) guidelines.
methodsA cross-sectional, observational study was conducted at a tertiary care hospital. Children presenting for vision testing were screened using the PlusOptix S12C device, and results were compared with the gold standard cycloplegic refraction and cover test. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated for the overall population and subpopulations based on ARFs.
resultsA total of 196 children aged 24-84 months were screened (46.4% boys, mean age: 56.94 ± 17.52 months). The PlusOptix S12C demonstrated an overall sensitivity and specificity of 85.5% and 82.3%, respectively. Sensitivity for hyperopia (>4.00 D) was lower (47.7%), while specificity was 81.7%. For strabismus (>8 Δ), sensitivity and specificity were 67.8% and 91.1%, respectively. The device failed to produce readings in 21.9% of children, primarily those with significant refractive errors or strabismus.
conclusionsThe PlusOptix S12C demonstrated good overall sensitivity and specificity for detecting ARFs, making it a valuable tool for large-scale paediatric vision screening, including in very young children. However, its inherent limitations in detecting high hyperopia and strabismus, combined with the high prevalence of these conditions in the untestable group, highlight the need for supplementary evaluation. Children who receive a 'no result' or 'unable-to-read' outcome on the device should be referred for a full examination, including cycloplegic refraction, to ensure ARFs are not missed. While the device aligns well with the 2021 AAPOS and MOH guidelines, careful attention to its limitations in high-risk subpopulations is essential to optimise screening efficacy and outcomes.
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.