Comparison of preschool vision screening tests as administered by licensed eye care professionals in the vision in preschoolers study

被引:13
|
作者
Schmidt, P
Ciner, E
Cyert, L
Dobson, V
Kulp, MT
Maguire, M
Moore, B
Orel-Bixler, D
Peskin, E
Quinn, G
Redford, M
Schultz, J
Beck, R
Cotter, S
Holmes, J
Shipp, M
West, S
Schmidt, P
Maguire, M
Dobson, V
Quinn, G
Ciner, E
Cyert, L
Kulp, MT
Moore, B
Orel-Bixler, D
Redford, M
Ying, GS
Orel-Bixler, D
Qualley, P
Howard, D
Fisher, S
Fong, D
Hsiao, C
Koseoglu, S
Moy, AM
Shapiro, S
Verdon, L
Watson, T
Frane, S
Friedman, N
Seino, J
McDonnell, S
Paez, E
Perea, C
Sloan, D
Smith, E
Soto, L
Stelly-Leonard, A
Moore, B
机构
[1] Ohio State Univ, Coll Optometry, Vis Preschoolers Study Ctr, Columbus, OH 43218 USA
[2] NEI, NIH, Dept Hlth & Human Serv, Bethesda, MD 20892 USA
关键词
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
R77 [眼科学];
学科分类号
100212 ;
摘要
Purpose: To compare 11 preschool vision screening tests administered by licensed eye care professionals (LEPs; optometrists and pediatric ophthalmologists). Design: Multicenter, cross-sectional study. Participants: A sample (N = 2588) of 3- to 5-year-old children enrolled in Head Start was selected to over-represent children with vision problems. Methods: Certified LEPs administered 11 commonly used or commercially available screening tests. Results from a standardized comprehensive eye examination were used to classify children with respect to 4 targeted conditions: amblyopia, strabismus, significant refractive error, and unexplained reduced visual acuity (VA). Main Outcome Measures: Sensitivity for detecting children with greater than or equal to1 targeted conditions at selected levels of specificity was the primary outcome measure. Sensitivity also was calculated for detecting conditions grouped into 3 levels of importance. Results: At 90% specificity, sensitivities of noncycloplegic retinoscopy (NCR) (64%), the Retinomax Autorefractor (63%), SureSight Vision Screener (63%), and Lea Symbols test (61%) were similar. Sensitivities of the Power Refractor II(54%) and HOTV VA test (54%) were similar to each other. Sensitivities of the Random Dot E stereoacuity (42%) and Stereo Smile II (44%) tests were similar to each other and lower (P<0.0001) than the sensitivities of NCR, the 2 autorefractors, and the Lea Symbols test. The cover-uncover test had very low sensitivity (16%) but very high specificity (98%). Sensitivity for conditions considered the most important to detect was 80% to 90% for the 2 autorefractors and NCR. Central interpretations for the MTI and iScreen photoscreeners each yielded 94% specificity and 37% sensitivity, At 94% specificity, the sensitivities were significantly better for NCR, the 2 autorefractors, and the Lea Symbols VA test than for the 2 photoscreeners for detecting = greater than or equal to1 targeted conditions and for detecting the most important conditions. Conclusions: Screening tests administered by LEPs vary widely in performance. With 90% specificity, the best tests detected only two thirds of children having !l targeted conditions, but nearly 90% of children with the most important conditions. The 2 tests that use static photorefractive technology were less accurate than 3 tests that assess refractive error in other ways. These results have important implications for screening preschoolaged children. (C) 2004 by the American Academy of Ophthalmology.
引用
收藏
页码:637 / 650
页数:14
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Preschool vision screening tests administered by nurse screeners compared with lay screeners in the vision in preschoolers study
    Schmidt, P
    Baumritter, A
    Ciner, E
    Cyert, L
    Dobson, V
    Haas, B
    Kulp, MT
    Maguire, M
    Moore, B
    Orel-Bixler, D
    Peskin, E
    Quinn, G
    Redford, M
    Schultz, J
    Ying, GS
    [J]. INVESTIGATIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY & VISUAL SCIENCE, 2005, 46 (08) : 2639 - 2648
  • [2] Preschool Vision Screening Study
    Ilango, Mythili
    French, Amanda
    Rose, Kathryn Ailsa
    [J]. INVESTIGATIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY & VISUAL SCIENCE, 2023, 64 (08)
  • [3] Preschool vision screening in primary care after a legislative mandate for diagnostic eye examinations
    Kemper, AR
    Fant, KE
    Badgett, JT
    [J]. SOUTHERN MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2003, 96 (09) : 859 - 862
  • [4] Preschool vision screening: Maternal and Child Health Bureau and National Eye Institute task force on vision screening in the preschool child
    Eugenie Hartmann, E.
    [J]. Optometry and Vision Science, 2001, 78 (02) : 122 - 126
  • [5] Danish Rural Eye Study: the association of preschool vision screening with the prevalence of amblyopia
    Hoeg, Tracy B.
    Moldow, Birgitte
    Ellervik, Christina
    Klemp, Kristian
    Erngaard, Ditte
    la Cour, Morten
    Buch, Helena
    [J]. ACTA OPHTHALMOLOGICA, 2015, 93 (04) : 322 - 329
  • [6] Vision health care providers' attitudes and experiences with preschool vision screening in Ontario
    Reed, MJ
    Kraft, SP
    [J]. OPTOMETRY AND VISION SCIENCE, 2004, 81 (07) : 548 - 553
  • [7] VISION SCREENING AND CHILDRENS ACCESS TO EYE CARE
    LICHTER, PR
    [J]. OPHTHALMOLOGY, 1992, 99 (06) : 843 - 844
  • [8] Preschool Vision Screening in Primary Care Pediatric Practice
    Hered, Robert W.
    Wood, David L.
    [J]. PUBLIC HEALTH REPORTS, 2013, 128 (03) : 189 - 197
  • [9] PRESCHOOL VISION SCREENING - A PILOT-STUDY
    HILTON, AF
    STARK, DJ
    BIGGS, AB
    OHARA, V
    [J]. AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY, 1982, 10 (03): : 199 - 202
  • [10] A COMPARISON OF VISION SCREENING TECHNIQUES IN PRESCHOOL-CHILDREN
    FERN, KD
    [J]. INVESTIGATIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY & VISUAL SCIENCE, 1991, 32 (04) : 962 - 962