Multifaceted Amblyopia Screening with blinq, 2WIN, and PDI Check

BACKGROUND

Novel devices target different facets of amblyopia risk factors (ARFs). Through birefringence, the Rebion blinq assesses binocular foveation. The Adaptica 2WIN is a multiradial infrared photorefractor that also estimates ocular alignment. PDI Check is a forced-choice, dynamic near-vision game for the autostereoscopic Nintendo 3DS.

METHODS

New and returning patients to a pediatric ophthalmology clinic had concomitant confirmatory exams after all three vision screens had been validated with ROC curves, Bland-Altman plots, and Alaska Blind Child Discovery ellipsoid grades. Exam outcomes were classified by ARF visual acuity, strabismus, binocularity, and refractive errors following the 2021 AAPOS guidelines and Bosque-Hunter rubric for the blinq.

RESULTS

A total of 202 ethnically diverse students aged 10±4 (4-19) years, 33% treatment-naïve, had a high (58%) prevalence of ARFs. Linear logMAR visual acuity, intereye differences, stereo and three-cone color correlated well between PDI Check and exams. Mean score on the 2WIN matched sphero-cylinder exam with ellipsoid scoring was 2.1±1.5. For AAPOS 2021 refractive plus strabismus, sensitivity/specificity for PDI Check was 68%/59%, 2WIN 72%/95%, and blinq 87%/32%. For the amblyopia or strabismus rubric, PDI Check was 79%/68%, 2WIN 56%/65%, and blinq 94%/37%.

CONCLUSION

Each device had advantages and disadvantages in screening this cohort of older, high-prevalence students, many of whom had already been treated. Validation methods should cover more than just refraction, as the new 2021 AAPOS guidelines do.

The Positive Predictive Value of Smartphone Photoscreening in Pediatric Practices

PURPOSE

To compare smartphone photoscreening with other commercial objective screeners for amblyopia screening for young children.

METHODS

Ten pediatricians in four practices employed Nokia 1020 smartphones (Espoo, Finland) with single-axis Gobiquity software (Scottsdale, AZ) during well-child visits. Outcomes of confirmatory pediatric ophthalmology examinations were prospectively compared using American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus uniform standards.

RESULTS

Five percent of 6,310 in-office screenings were referred: 25% for high anisometropia, 31% for hyperopia, and 15% for myopia. The positive predictive value (PPV) in 217 follow-up examinations was 68% (95% confidence interval: 62% to 74%) by 2013 age-stratified standards and 77% (confidence interval: 71% to 83%) by 2003 American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus standards. The follow-up rate was 65%.

CONCLUSIONS

Smartphone photoscreening had PPV comparable with other commercial objective screeners. Simple, valid photoscreeners should help pediatricians achieve widespread compliance with screening guidelines to reduce the burden of pediatric amblyopia vision impairment. [J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus. 2018;55(6):393-396.].

Performance of four new photoscreeners on pediatric patients with high risk amblyopia

PURPOSE

A new study by the American Academy of Pediatrics touts the benefits of photoscreening, especially in preverbal children who cannot yet perform monocular acuity screening. Emerging devices have not been compared in young and developmentally challenged children.

METHODS

Consecutive patients in a pediatric eye practice had a comprehensive eye examination and four photoscreens: PlusoptiX (PlusoptiX, Nuremburg, Germany), SPOT (PediaVision, Lake Mary, FL), iScreen (iScreen, Memphis, TN), and the GoCheckKids application (Gobiquity, Aliso Viejo, CA) for the iPhone 4s (Apple, Cupertino, CA) with Delta Center Crescent interpretation. They were validated according to the 2003 American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus uniform guidelines.

RESULTS

One hundred eight children aged 1 to 12 years participated, with 56% having amblyopia risk factors and 10% having autism. For the four devices, sensitivity, specificity, and inconclusive results were as follows: PlusoptiX (83%, 86%, 23%), SPOT (80%, 85%, 4%), iScreen (75%, 88%, 13%) and iScreen (with Delta Center Crescent) (92%, 88%, 0%), and GoCheckKids (with Delta Center Crescent) (81%, 91%, 3%).

CONCLUSIONS

Even in high risk and young children, current instrument-based screeners can reliably screen for refractive and strabismic risk factors that lead to amblyopia. Some devices can reduce the proportion of inclusive results in challenging cases.

Calibration and validation of nine objective vision screeners with contact lens-induced anisometropia

PURPOSE

New objective photoscreeners are emerging with encouraging national guidelines and pediatric providers can be reimbursed for photoscreening.

METHODS

Nine objective screeners were applied to two emmetropic subjects with or without known power contact lenses to induce spherical and cylindrical anisometropia close to American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus (AAPOS) thresholds.

RESULTS

The screeners produced near linear pupil crescents and estimated refractions for induced anisometropia. Most performed well with AAPOS 2003 validation; however, the iPhone (Apple, Cupertino, CA) was too sensitive, whereas the remote autorefractors using Vision in Preschoolers Study criteria were less sensitive.

CONCLUSIONS

The new, interpreted objective screeners appear valid for detection of anismetropia.

Preschool vision screening in primary care pediatric practice

OBJECTIVES

We determined the efficacy of pediatric-based preschool vision screening, as knowledge of vision screening effectiveness in primary care pediatrics is incomplete.

METHODS

Pediatricians and staff at nine primary care pediatric practices were trained in vision screening, and practices screened children aged 3-5 years from May 2007 through July 2008. Children failing or considered untestable were referred for pediatric ophthalmology examinations. We determined rates of testability, failure, referral, and ophthalmologic examination completion, as well as positive predictive values (PPVs) of screening failure and untestability. We also surveyed practices to assess the ease and accuracy of preschool vision screening.

RESULTS

Of 2,933 children screened, 93 (3.2%) failed the vision screening and 349 (11.9%) were untestable. Untestability was highest (27.1%) among 3-year-olds. The PPV for failing any aspect of the vision screening was 66.7%; for children aged 3, 4, and 5 years, the PPVs for failing were 30.0%, 77.8%, and 87.5%, respectively. However, only 38.7% of children who failed the vision screening received ophthalmologic examinations, despite multiple follow-up attempts. Pediatricians rated the ease and accuracy of screening 3-year-old children lower than for screening older children.

CONCLUSIONS

Visual acuity-based screening had good PPV for vision loss for 4- and 5-year-old children but was less successful for 3-year-olds. Rates of referral and ophthalmologic examination completion were low, especially among children from low-income families.

Practical community photoscreening in very young children

OBJECTIVE

Recent US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations on vision screening reported insufficient data to recommend vision screening in children <3 years of age. The Iowa photoscreening program, KidSight, has screened children from 6 months of age and older since 2000. We report our experience with vision screening in these children and compare the results of the photoscreens in children younger than 3 years with those of children of preschool age and older.

METHODS

A retrospective review of results from the Iowa KidSight database using the MTI PhotoScreener containing results of children screened between May 1, 2000, and April 30, 2011.

RESULTS

During the 11 years of the study, 210 695 photoscreens on children were performed at 13 750 sites. In the <3-year age group, the unreadable rate was 13.0%, the referral rate was 3.3%, and the overall positive-predictive value was 86.6%. In the 3- to 6-year-old children, the unreadable rate was 4.1%, the referral rate was 4.7%, and the overall positive-predictive value was 89.4%.

CONCLUSIONS

No statistically significant difference was found in screening children from 1 to 3 years old compared with screening children >3 years old. These results confirm that early screening, before amblyopia is more pronounced, can reliably detect amblyogenic risk factors in children younger than 3 years of age, and we recommend initiation of photoscreening in children aged 1 year and older.

Overcoming barriers to pediatric visual acuity screening through education plus provision of materials

PURPOSE

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommends that LEA and HOTV optotypes be used for vision screening and that adhesive tape be used to occlude one eye during testing. We have developed an educational program designed to improve the quality and efficiency of vision screening. The purpose of this study was to ascertain the effectiveness of this program.

METHODS

All 672 pediatric doctors and nurses in the state of Alaska were surveyed by mail to assess their screening protocol and the number of patients cared for annually. Respondents received educational material, including an instructional video, eye patches for visual acuity testing, and a critical line HOTV test box. Subjects were resurveyed 3 months later to determine whether the instructional intervention altered their established protocol.

RESULTS

Of the 672 practitioners contacted for the survey, 239 (35.6%) responded, representing 31,000 patients, or 62% of all preschool children in Alaska. Use of recommended optotypes was rare (Lea, 3%, HOTV, 7%) compared with the use of nonrecommended optotypes (including use of the E test by 40% of respondents). The postintervention survey was answered by 107 (16%) practitioners. Of these, 24 (23%) reported that they had begun using an adhesive patch for visual acuity testing, whereas 19 (18%) had begun using AAP-recommended testing optotypes.

CONCLUSIONS

In-office video education and provided adhesive eye patches increased the use of patches in primary care preschool vision screening. Mail delivery was less effective than anticipated.