Can A Photoscreener Help Us Remotely Evaluate and Manage Amblyopia?

Family Eye Group, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, PA 17601, USA.
American Orthoptic Journal 08/2011; 61(1):124-7. DOI: 10.3368/aoj.61.1.124
Source: PubMed


IntRODUCTION AND PURPOSE: To determine whether the plusoptiX® S04 photo-screener can assist in remotely managing amblyopia.
A retrospective chart review was performed on 103 children with amblyopia. All patients had a plusoptiX® screening performed while wearing their optical correction during a comprehensive pediatric ophthalmology examination.
Children were classified as being fully treated in their glasses or needing further intervention to treat their amblyopia and / or strabismus. Further treatment was indicated if children were found to have abnormal alignment and / or best corrected visual acuity of 20 / 40 or worse in either eye with correction. Photoscreening results for these children demonstrated a sensitivity, specificity, false negative rate and false positive rate of 69%, 84%, 31%, and 16%, respectively. When visual acuity and photoscreening were combined for children who initially passed the plusoptiX® screen, these metrics improved to 97%, 89%, 2.7%, and 11%, respectively.
Photoscreening combined with simple measurements of visual acuity may be a viable option for following efficacy of treatment in amblyopes. In some parts of the United States and in many areas of the world where telemedicine plays an increasingly important role, the plusoptiX® photoscreener could enhance vision care and may enhance telemedicine and the treatment of amblyopia.

Download full-text


Available from: Noelle S Matta,
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose: Pediatricians are interested in the amblyopia detection ability of photoscreeners, whereas ophthalmologists ponder their value as autorefractors. The 2WIN (Adaptica, Padova, Italy) is a new device capable of estimating refractive error and ocular alignment by infrared photoscreening. Methods: Sequential pediatric eye patients with a high (56% to 60%) prescreening prevalence of amblyopia risk factors were screened with the PlusoptiX S12 (PlusoptiX, Inc., Atlanta, GA), SPOT (PediaVision, Lake Mary, FL), and 2WIN photoscreeners before confirmatory examination adhering to American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus guidelines and Alaska Blind Child Discovery institutional review board protocol. Instrument referral guidelines determined through phase 1 comparison was then applied on additional patients for validation in phase 2. Results: Sixty-two children (age: 1 to 10 years, mean: 5.2 years) were screened with all three devices before cycloplegic examination. Refractive results were inconclusive due to pupil size, cooperation, and out-of-range values. Values for sensitivity (91% and 78%), specificity (71% and 59%), and inconclusive rate (10% and 13%) were found for PlusoptiX and SPOT. The 2WIN was calibrated for this age range (phase 1), yielding 71% sensitivity, 67% specificity, and a 5% inconclusive rate. Regression compared to examination for the PlusoptiX, SPOT, and 2WIN, respectively, were sphere (r(2): 0.76, 0.87, and 0.58), cylinder power (r(2): 0.67, 0.56, and 0.50), and cylinder axis (r(2): 0.71, 0.41, and 0.40). A preferred 2WIN instrument criteria set was determined from the receiver operating characteristic curve. In phase 2, with 117 patients comparing 2WIN to PlusoptiX A-09, sensitivity was 73% and 85%, specificity was 76% and 73%, and inconclusive rate was 8% and 12%, respectively. The three instant-interpreting photorefractors performed well on amblyopic children, with the 2WIN having low inconclusive results. The PlusoptiX outperformed the SPOT and 2WIN as an autorefractor, particularly with respect to astigmatism power and axis. Conclusions: The new 2WIN is a promising addition to portable photoscreeners for amblyopia detection and estimating refractive error.
    Journal of Pediatric Ophthalmology & Strabismus 07/2014; 51(5):1-4. DOI:10.3928/01913913-20140701-01 · 0.75 Impact Factor
  • Source

    Clinical and Experimental Optometry 07/2015; 98(4):385-6. DOI:10.1111/cxo.12252 · 1.34 Impact Factor