This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Hoge nauwkeurigheid die klinisch is bewezenSpot vergeleken met pediatrisch oogonderzoek
BackgroundThe Spot Vision Screener has demonstrated good sensitivity and specificity in the pediatric ophthalmology clinic setting. We sought to evaluate the updated Spot (version 2.0.16) in a general pediatric population through a collaboration of the Storm Eye Institute of the Medical University of South Carolina, the Clinica DrClorito Picado, and National Children's Hospital of Costa Rica. We compared results of screening with the Spot and pediatric ophthalmologic examination and determined sensitivity and specificity of the Spot in detecting amblyogenic risk factors (ARFs) according to the 2013 AAPOS Vision Screening Committee guidelines for automated vision screeners.
MethodsChildren were screened with the Spot followed by a pediatric ophthalmologic examination. Cycloplegic refraction and motility findings were analyzed by age group to determine ARFs.
ResultsA total of 219 subjects, averaging 60 months of age (range, 20-119 mo) were included. The prevalence of ARFs in our population was 12.3% (27/219). The most common risk factor was astigmatism, with a prevalence of 8.7% (19/219). The Spot referred 43 children (19.6%). Sensitivity of the Spot was 92.6%; specificity, 90.6%. The positive predictive value was 58.1%; the negative predictive value, 98.9%.ConclusionsThe Spot demonstrated good sensitivity and specificity in detecting amblyopia risk factors in this general pediatric population.
Bron: Evaluation of the Spot Vision Screener in young children in Costa Rica. J AAPOS. 2015 Oct;19(5):441-4. doi: 10.1016/j.jaapos.2015.08.002.
Samenvatting van de studie
Information contained in this slide deck is confidential and should not be distributed further
Succesvolle meting in 97% van de gevallenSpot vergeleken met cycloplegische refractie
PurposeTo evaluate the accuracy of the Spot (V2.0.16) and Plusoptix S12 (ROC4, V6.1.4.0) photoscreeners in detecting astigmatism meeting AAPOS referral criteria in students from a population with high prevalence of astigmatism.
MethodsStudents attending grades 3–8 on the Tohono O’odham reservation were examined. Screening was attempted with both the Spot and Plusoptix photoscreeners. Results were compared to cycloplegic refraction. Screening attempts providing no estimate of refractive error were considered fail/refer. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) for detection of refractive errors were determined using AAPOS referral criteria and receiver operating characteristic area under the curve (ROC AUC) analysis was conducted for measures of astigmatism. Agreement between screening and cycloplegic refraction measurements of astigmatism, spherical equivalent, and anisometropia were assessed using t tests and correlation analyses.
ResultsA total of 209 students were included. Of the total, 116 (55%) met examination-positive criteria based on cycloplegic refraction, with 105 of those (90%) meeting the criterion for astigmatism. Measurements success rates were 97% for Spot and 54% for Plusoptix. Comparing the Spot and the Plusoptix, sensitivity was 96% versus 100%, specificity was 87% versus 61%, PPV was 90% versus 76%, and NPV was 94% versus 100% for detection of refractive error. Both screeners overestimated astigmatism by 1/3 D to 2/3 D. AUC for astigmatism was 0.97 for Spot and 0.83 for Plusoptix.
ConclusionsIn this highly astigmatic population, the Spot and the Plusoptix had similar sensitivity, but the Spot had better specificity and measurement success rates. Compared with results from study samples with lower rates of astigmatism, our results highlight the need to assess the ability of screening instruments to detect individual types of refractive errors.
Bron: Accuracy of the Spot and Plusoptix photoscreeners for detection of astigmatism; 2015, Mabel Crescioni, JD, DrPH, Joseph M. Miller, MD, MPH, and Erin M. Harvey, PhD.
Samenvatting van de studie
Information contained in this slide deck is confidential and should not be distributed further