Photorefraction of eyes: history and future prospects

Comparison of the PlusoptiX A16 and vision screener V100

Clinical relevance

This study compares a novel photoscreening device with a previously validated one in a school-age population. It highlights a tendency of the new device to underestimate myopic spherical equivalent and overestimate hyperopic cases.

Purpose

To compare the PlusoptiX A16 and Vision Screener V100 photoscreeners in a study population of school-age children.

Methods

One hundred and thirty-three children, with a mean age of 6.4 ± 0.5 years, were evaluated using both the PlusoptiX A16 and Vision Screener V100 photoscreeners. The measurements were taken in random order in a room with diminished ambient lighting.

Results

The mean refractive error values for the M component were 0.27 ± 0.67D (PlusoptiX A16) and 0.21 ± 0.58D (Vision Screener V100). For the J0 component, means were 0.16 ± 0.38D (PlusoptiX A16) and 0.06 ± 0.33D (Vision Screener V100) and for theJ45 component the means were 0.03 ± 0.17D (PlusoptiX A16) and 0.06 ± 0.22D (Vision Screener V100). When compared both instruments, statistically significant differences were observed for the M (p=0.017) and J0 (p=0.004) components. The agreement rates between PlusoptiX A16 and Vision Screener V100 across different refractive components were 80.5% for sphere, 82.0% for cylinder, and 40.6% for axis when considering a range of ±0.75 D for sphere and cylinder and ±25.0 degrees for cylinder axis. Simultaneously considering all three conditions, the overall agreement was 73.7%.

Conclusion

The Vision Screener V100, while generally aligning well with PlusoptiX A16, tends to underestimate myopic spherical equivalent, overestimate hyperopic cases, and underestimate J0 astigmatism.

Photorefraction Screening Plus Atropine Treatment for Myopia is Cost-Effective: A Proof-of-Concept Markov Analysis

Purpose

The prevalence of myopia is increasing globally, putting individuals at risk of myopia-associated visual impairment. Low-dose atropine eye drops have been found to safely reduce the risk of progression from myopia to higher levels of myopia and pathological states. In New Zealand, school children have an eye check at age 11. In this study, we aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of introducing photorefractive screening for myopia at age 11 in the New Zealand context, with atropine 0.01% eye drops treatment for those screening positive.

Patients and Methods

A Markov cohort simulation was used to model the impact of screening plus atropine compared to usual care across a lifetime horizon and societal perspective with a 3% discount rate. Cost-effectiveness was determined by the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), with utility measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Multivariate sensitivity analyses were carried out to investigate factors influencing cost-effectiveness.

Results

The ICER for screening plus atropine was NZ$1590 (95% CI 1390, 1791) per QALY gained, with 7 cases of lifetime blindness prevented per 100,000 children screened.

Conclusion

Screening for myopia with photorefraction at age 11 and atropine 0.01% eye drop treatment of children screening positive is likely to be cost-effective. These results suggest that a real-world trial and cost-effectiveness analysis would be worth considering in New Zealand.

Fluctuations of Steady-State Accommodation Is a Marker for Screening Spasm of Near Reflex

Purpose

To determine the utility of root mean squared (RMS) deviations of steady-state accommodation as a noncycloplegic marker for spasm of near reflex (SNR) vis-à-vis regular refractive errors.

Methods

Binocular steady-state responses of accommodation, pupil, and vergence of 20 patients with accommodative spasm subtype of SNR (SNR-A; 9-23 years) and 91 with regular refractive errors (29 emmetropes, 41 myopes, 21 hyperopes; 19-38 years) was recorded in the uncorrected refractive error state for 120 seconds using a dynamic (50 frames per second), infrared photorefractor. Mean and RMS deviation of raw data was calculated for three 20-second-long epochs and their diagnostic utility was determined using standard ROC curves.

Results

RMS deviations of accommodation increased with mean refractive error in SNR-A (y = -0.23x + 0.38; r2 = 0.69; P < 0.001) and regular refractive error (y = -0.02x + 0.10; r2 = 0.14; P = 0.002) cohorts, albeit with steeper slope and higher y-intercept in the former rather than the latter cohort. RMS deviation of 0.19D reliably distinguished SNR-A from regular refractive errors with a sensitivity and specificity of 95.2% and 92.2%, respectively [mean (±1 SEM) area under ROC curve: 0.98 ± 0.01]. The sensitivity, specificity, and area under ROC curve for RMS deviations of pupil (66.7%, 80%, and 0.70 ± 0.09) and vergence (52.4%, 84.6%, and 0.68 ± 0.08) were smaller than accommodation.

Conclusions

RMS deviations of steady-state accommodation is a robust noncycloplegic marker for differentiating SNR-A from regular refractive errors. Pupil and vergence fluctuations have limited utility in this regard.

Translational Relevance

RMS deviations of accommodation may be easily obtained using commercial photorefractors, and the cut-off values reported herein may be implemented to identify SNR-A during refractive error screening.

Calibration of the PlusOptix PowerRef 3 with change in viewing distance, adult age and refractive error

Purpose

The PowerRef 3 is frequently used in studying the near triad of accommodation, vergence and pupil responses in normal and clinical populations. Within a range, the defocus measurement of the PowerRef 3 is linearly related to the eye's defocus. While the default factory‐calibrated slope of this relation (calibration factor) is 1, it has been shown that the slope can vary across individuals. Here, we addressed the impact of changes in viewing distance, age and defocus of the eye on the calibration factor.

Methods

We manipulated viewing distance (40 cm, 1 m and 6 m) and recruited participants with a range of accommodative capabilities: participants in their 20s, 40s and over 60 years old. To test whether any effect was larger than the range of measurement reliability of the instrument, we collected data for each condition four times: two in the same session, another on the same day, and one on a different day.

Results

The results demonstrated that viewing distance did not affect the calibration factor over the linear range, regardless of age or uncorrected refractive error. The largest proportion of the variance was explained by between‐subject differences.

Conclusions

Calibration data for the PowerRef 3 were not sensitive to changes in viewing distance. Nevertheless, our results re‐emphasise the relevance of calibration for studies of individual participants.

Quality of eyeglass prescriptions from a low-cost wavefront autorefractor evaluated in rural India: results of a 708-participant field study

Objective

To assess the quality of eyeglass prescriptions provided by an affordable wavefront autorefractor operated by a minimally trained technician in a low-resource setting.

Methods and Analysis

708 participants were recruited from consecutive patients registered for routine eye examinations at Aravind Eye Hospital in Madurai, India, or an affiliated rural satellite vision centre. Visual acuity (VA) and patient preference were compared between trial lenses set to two eyeglass prescriptions from (1) a novel wavefront autorefractor and (2) subjective refraction by an experienced refractionist.

Results

The mean±SD VA was 0.30±0.37, –0.02±0.14 and −0.04±0.11 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution units before correction, with autorefractor correction and with subjective refraction correction, respectively (all differences p<0.01). Overall, 25% of participants had no preference, 33% preferred eyeglass prescriptions from autorefraction, and 42% preferred eyeglass prescriptions from subjective refraction (p<0.01). Of the 438 patients 40 years old and younger, 96 had no preference and the remainder had no statistically significant difference in preference for subjective refraction prescriptions (51%) versus autorefractor prescriptions (49%) (p=0.52).

Conclusion

Average VAs from autorefractor-prescribed eyeglasses were one letter worse than those from subjective refraction. More than half of all participants either had no preference or preferred eyeglasses prescribed by the autorefractor. This marginal difference in quality may warrant autorefractor-based prescriptions, given the portable form factor, short measurement time, low cost and minimal training required to use the autorefractor evaluated here.

Tribal Odisha Eye Disease Study # 4: Accuracy and utility of photorefraction for refractive error correction in tribal Odisha (India) school screening

Purpose

To compare the photorefraction system (Welch Allyn Spot™) performance with subjective refraction in school sight program in one Odisha (India) tribal district.

Methods

In a cross-sectional study school students, aged 5-15 years, referred after the preliminary screening by trained school teachers received photoscreening and subjective correction. The photoscreener was compared to subjective refraction in the range of +2D to -7.5D. Statistical analysis included Friedman nonparametric test, Wilcoxon signed-rank test, linear regression, and Bland-Altman plotting.

Results

The photoscreener was used in 5990 children. This analysis included 443 children (187 males, 256 females, and the mean age was 12.43 ± 2.5 years) who received both photorefraction and subjective correction, and vision improved to 6/6 in either eye. The median spherical equivalent (SE) with spot photorefraction was 0.00 D (minimum -5.0D; maximum +1.6 D), and with subjective correction was 0.00D (minimum -6.00 D; maximum +1.5 D). The difference in the SE between the two methods was statistically significant (P < 0.001) using Friedman nonparametric test; it was not significant for J 45 and J 180 (P = 0.39 and P = 0.17, respectively). There was a good correlation in linear regression analysis (R2 = 0.84) and Bland-Altman showed a good agreement between photorefraction and subjective correction in the tested range.

Conclusion

Photorefraction may be recommended for autorefraction in school screening with reasonable accuracy if verified with a satisfactory subjective correction. The added advantages include its speed, need of less expensive eye care personnel, ability to refract both eyes together, and examination possibility in the native surrounding.

Lens magnification affects the estimates of refractive error obtained using eccentric infrared photorefraction

Positive- and negative-powered ophthalmic lenses are used in eccentric infrared photorefraction to calibrate the device, correct the subject's baseline refractive error before an experimental manipulation, or stimulate blur-driven accommodation. Through theoretical modeling of luminance gradients formed across the pupil and empirical measurements of the eye's refractive error using a commercial photorefractor, this study shows that image magnification by positive lenses and image minification by negative lenses under- and overestimates the refractive error, respectively, all independent of image defocus. The impact of image magnification/minification therefore appears non-trivial in experimental paradigms involving ophthalmic lenses to manipulate the eye's optics during photorefraction.

Performance of Photoscreener in Detection of Refractive Error in All Age Groups and Amblyopia Risk Factors in Children in a Tribal District of Odisha: The Tribal Odisha Eye Disease Study (TOES) # 3

PURPOSE

To evaluate effectiveness of Welch Allyn Spot Vision Screener in detecting refractive error in all age groups and amblyopia risk factors in children in a tribal district of India.

METHODS

All participants received dry retinoscopy and photorefraction; children also received cycloplegic retinoscopy. Statistical analysis included Bland-Altman and coefficient of determination (R2).

RESULTS

Photoscreener could not elicit a response in 113 adults and 5 children of 580 recruited participants. In Bland-Altman analysis mean difference of Spot screener spherical equivalent (SSSE) and dry retinoscopy spherical equivalent (DRSE) was 0.32 diopters (D) in adults and 0.18 D in children; this was an overestimation of hyperopia and underestimation of myopia. In Bland-Altman analysis of SSSE and cycloplegic retinoscopy spherical equivalent (CRSE) the mean difference was -0.30 D in children; this was an overestimation of myopia and underestimation of hyperopia. In regression analysis the relationship between SSSE and DRSE was poor in adults (R2 = 0.50) and good in children (R2 = 0.92). Cubic regression model for Spot versus cycloretinoscopy in children was: CRSE = 0.34 + 0.85 SSSE - 0.01 SSSE2 + 0.006 SSSE3. It was 87% accurate. Sensitivity and specificity of Spot in detecting amblyopia risk factors (2013 American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus [AAPOS] criteria) was 93.3% and 96.9% respectively. Sensitivity of Spot screener in detection of amblyopia was 72%.

CONCLUSIONS

Photoscreener has 87% accuracy in refraction in children. Its value could be used for subjective correction tests.

TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE

Photoscreening could complement traditional retinoscopy to address refractive error in children in a resource-limited facility region.

Tests for detecting strabismus in children aged 1 to 6 years in the community

BACKGROUND

Strabismus (misalignment of the eyes) is a risk factor for impaired visual development both of visual acuity and of stereopsis. Detection of strabismus in the community by non-expert examiners may be performed using a number of different index tests that include direct measures of misalignment (corneal or fundus reflex tests), or indirect measures such as stereopsis and visual acuity. The reference test to detect strabismus by trained professionals is the cover‒uncover test.

OBJECTIVES

To assess and compare the accuracy of tests, alone or in combination, for detection of strabismus in children aged 1 to 6 years, in a community setting by non-expert screeners or primary care professionals to inform healthcare commissioners setting up childhood screening programmes.Secondary objectives were to investigate sources of heterogeneity of diagnostic accuracy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 12) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) in the Cochrane Library, the Health Technology Assessment Database (HTAD) in the Cochrane Library (2016, Issue 4), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 5 January 2017), Embase Ovid (1947 to 5 January 2017), CINAHL (January 1937 to 5 January 2017), Web of Science Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (CPCI-S) (January 1990 to 5 January 2017), BIOSIS Previews (January 1969 to 5 January 2017), MEDION (to 18 August 2014), the Aggressive Research Intelligence Facility database (ARIF) (to 5 January 2017), the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch); searched 5 January 2017, ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov); searched 5 January 2017 and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en); searched 5 January 2017. We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. In addition, orthoptic journals and conference proceedings without electronic listings were searched.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All prospective or retrospective population-based test accuracy studies of consecutive participants were included. Studies compared a single or combination of index tests with the reference test. Only those studies with sufficient data for analysis were included specifically to calculate sensitivity and specificity and determine diagnostic accuracy.Participants were aged 1 to 6 years. Studies reporting participants outside this range were included if subgroup data were available.Permitted settings included population-based vision screening programmes or opportunistic screening programmes, such as those performed in schools.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. In brief, two review authors independently assessed titles and abstracts for eligibility and extracted the data, with a third senior author resolving any disagreement. We analysed data primarily for specificity and sensitivity.

MAIN RESULTS

One study from a total of 1236 papers, abstracts and trials was eligible for inclusion with a total number of participants of 335 of which 271 completed both the screening test and the gold standard test. The screening test using an automated photoscreener had a sensitivity of 0.46 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.19 to 0.75) and specificity of 0.97 (CI 0.94 to 0.99). The overall number affected by strabismus was low at 13 (4.8%).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is very limited data in the literature to ascertain the accuracy of tests for detecting strabismus in the community as performed by non-expert screeners. A large prospective study to compare methods would be required to determine which tests have the greatest accuracy.

Instrument-based pediatric vision screening

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose is to review currently available instruments for vision screening in young children.

RECENT FINDINGS

Instrumentation continues to evolve. Although the current generation of photoscreeners and autorefractors strive to identify amblyopia risk factors, newer technology aims to directly identify amblyopia in young children. Acceptance of instrument-based vision screening for this population has led to increased reimbursement for the procedure in primary care practices.

SUMMARY

Instrument-based vision screening in the young child is an accepted method of screening for amblyopia. Innovations in instrumentation will continue to improve its implementation.

Photorefraction estimates of refractive power varies with the ethnic origin of human eyes

Eccentric infrared photorefraction is an attractive tool for measuring refractive errors of young children and uncooperative subjects, for it allows quick and non-invasive acquisition of data from both eyes simultaneously over a reasonably large dioptric range. Accuracy of refraction in this technique depends on calibration of luminance slope formed across the pupil into diopters (defocus calibration factor). Commercial photorefractors, like the PowerRef 3™ used in this study, employ an universal defocus calibration factor from one population (Caucasian) to convert raw data of all populations. This study reports significantly larger defocus calibration factors of PowerRef 3™ in 132 East Asian, African and Indian eyes, relative to the machine's default calibration (p < 0.001). The calibration slope of 50 Indian eyes was over-estimated by 64 ± 11% (mean ± 95%CI), vis-à-vis, retinoscopy (p < 0.001). The error reduced to ~6–7% upon rescaling the data using a calibration factor specific for Indian eyes or to that individual (p > 0.9, relative to no over-estimation). Our results therefore strongly suggest the use of an ethnicity- or individual-specific defocus calibration factor for accurate estimation of refraction using photorefraction. Inaccurate refraction estimates due to calibration errors will otherwise severely undermine the advantages of this technique.

Empirical variability in the calibration of slope-based eccentric photorefraction

Refraction estimates from eccentric infrared (IR) photorefraction depend critically on the calibration of luminance slopes in the pupil. While the intersubject variability of this calibration has been estimated, there is no systematic evaluation of its intrasubject variability. This study determined the within subject inter- and intra-session repeatability of this calibration factor and the optimum range of lenses needed to derive this value. Relative calibrations for the MCS PowerRefractor and a customized photorefractor were estimated twice within one session or across two sessions by placing trial lenses before one eye covered with an IR transmitting filter. The data were subsequently resampled with various lens combinations to determine the impact of lens power range on the calibration estimates. Mean (±1.96 SD) calibration slopes were 0.99±0.39 for North Americans with the MCS PowerRefractor (relative to its built-in value) and 0.65±0.25 Ls/D and 0.40±0.09 Ls/D for Indians and North Americans with the custom photorefractor, respectively. The ±95% limits of agreement of intrasubject variability ranged from ±0.39 to ±0.56 for the MCS PowerRefractor and ±0.03 Ls/D to ±0.04 Ls/D for the custom photorefractor. The mean differences within and across sessions were not significantly different from zero (p>0.38 for all). The combined intersubject and intrasubject variability of calibration is therefore about ±40% of the mean value, implying that significant errors in individual refraction/accommodation estimates may arise if a group-average calibration is used. Protocols containing both plus and minus lenses had calibration slopes closest to the gold-standard protocol, suggesting that they may provide the best estimate of the calibration factor compared to those containing either plus or minus lenses.

Development of human visual function

By 1985 newly devised behavioral and electrophysiological techniques had been used to track development of infants' acuity, contrast sensitivity and binocularity, and for clinical evaluation of developing visual function. This review focus on advances in the development and assessment of infant vision in the following 25 years. Infants' visual cortical function has been studied through selectivity for orientation, directional motion and binocular disparity, and the control of subcortical oculomotor mechanisms in fixation shifts and optokinetic nystagmus, leading to a model of increasing cortical dominance over subcortical pathways. Neonatal face processing remains a challenge for this model. Recent research has focused on development of integrative processing (hyperacuity, texture segmentation, and sensitivity to global form and motion coherence) in extra-striate visual areas, including signatures of dorsal and ventral stream processing. Asynchronies in development of these two streams may be related to their differential vulnerability in both acquired and genetic disorders. New methods and approaches to clinical disorders are reviewed, in particular the increasing focus on paediatric neurology as well as ophthalmology. Visual measures in early infancy in high-risk children are allowing measures not only of existing deficits in infancy but prediction of later visual and cognitive outcome. Work with early cataract and later recovery from blinding disorders has thrown new light on the plasticity of the visual system and its limitations. The review concludes with a forward look to future opportunities provided by studies of development post infancy, new imaging and eye tracking methods, and sampling infants' visual ecology.

Transferences of heterocentric astigmatic catadioptric systems including Purkinje systems

PURPOSE

To develop the linear optics of general catadioptric systems with allowance for both astigmatism and heterocentricity.

METHODS

Reflecting elements partition a catadioptric system into subsystems of four distinct types: (unreversed) dioptric subsystems, anterior catoptric subsystems, reversed dioptric subsystems, and posterior catoptric systems. Differential geometry of an arbitrary astigmatic and tilted or decentered surface is used to determine the anterior and posterior catoptric transferences of a surface.

RESULTS

The transference of a catadioptric system is obtained by multiplication of the transferences of unreversed and reversed dioptric subsystems and anterior and posterior catoptric transferences of reflecting elements. Formulae are obtained for the transferences of the visual system of an eye and of six nonvisual systems including the four Purkinje systems.

CONCLUSIONS

The transference can be calculated for a catadioptric system, and from it, one can obtain other optical properties of the system including the dioptric power and the locations of the optical axis and cardinal structures.