Rastreamento visual, photoscreening e dispensação de óculos com a tecnologia ready to ClipTM / Visual acuity screening, photoscreening and dispensing of glasses with ready to Clip™ technology

Resumo Introdução: Os rastreamentos visuais realizados nas escolas são, às vezes, a única oportunidade de deteção dos erros de refração não corrigidos (ERN) causadores de baixa visual, prejuízo na aquisição do conhecimento, evasão e repetência escolar, habilidades motoras pobres, dificuldade na interação social e baixa autoestima nos escolares. Objetivos: Comparar a detecção de ERN em escolares do ensino fundamental por meio de rastreamento visual (medida da AV com a tabela de Snellen) e por photoscreener; avaliar a acurácia do SpotTM Vision Screener (Welch Allyn) como autorefrator comparando suas medidas de refração com as do autorrefrator Topcon KR 8000 (Japão) e levantar a proporção de óculos com a tecnologia ready to Clip™ que foram dispensados no momento da avaliação dos escolares. Métodos: Duzentos e noventa e sete escolares foram submetidos à rastreamento visual (ponto de corte: AV monocular ≤ 0,7 e/ou diferença duas linhas de Snellen entre os olhos), photoscreening (ponto de corte: hipermetropia ≥3,00D, miopia ≥0,75D e astigmatismo > 1D) e à mensuração do erro de refração sob cicloplegia com o photoscreener e o autorrefrator. Somente os dados de refração do olho direito foram analisados. Os achados foram convertidos em vetores de magnitude para análise. Resultados: Os valores de sensibilidade e especificidade do método de rastreamento visual foram 67,2% e 63,5% e do photoscreening, foram 76,1% e 79,1%. A diferença da refração do SVS com o autorrefrator foi de +0,154 DE com -0,170 DC no eixo de 6 graus para o olho direito de cada paciente. Conclusões: Na população avaliada o método de rastreamento refrativo por photoscreener foi mais efetivo que o do rastreamento visual. A comparação dos resultados da refração sob cicloplegia com o autorrefrator validou o uso do photoscreener como um método de refração acurado para a mensuração de erros refrativos em escolares. A maioria dos escolares receberam os óculos com a tecnologia ready to Clip™ no momento da prescrição.

Abstract Background: The visual screening performed in schools is sometimes the only opportunity to detect uncorrected refraction errors (URE) causing low visual impairments, prejudice in the acquisition of knowledge, dropout and school repetition, poor motor skills, difficulty in social interaction and low self-esteem in schoolchildren. Objectives: To compare the detection of URE in elementary school children by visual screening (measurement of the AV with the Snellen table) and photoscreening; to evaluate the accuracy of the SpotTM Vision Screener (Welch Allyn) as an autorefractor by comparing its refraction measurements with those of the autorefractor Topcon KR 800 (Japan) and to verify the proportion of glasses with ready to ClipTM technology dispensed at the time of the students' evaluation. Methods: Two hundred ninety-seven students were submitted to visual screening (cutoff point: AV monocular ≤ 0.7 and/or difference two Snellen lines between the eyes), photoscreening (cutoff point: hypermetropia ≥ 3, 00D, myopia ≥ 0, 75D and astigmatism > 1D) and the measurement of the refraction error under cycloplegia with the photoscreener and autorefractor. Only the refraction data of the right eye were analyzed. The findings were converted into vectors of magnitude for analysis. Results: The sensitivity and specificity values of the visual screening method were 67.2% and 63.5% and photo screening were 76.1% and 79.1%. The mean difference between refraction by SVS and autorefractor was of + 0.154 SD combined with -0.170 DC in the 6-degree axis for the right eye of each patient. Conclusions: In the population evaluated the method of refractive screening by photoscreener was more effective than the visual screening. The comparison of the results of refraction under cycloplegia with the autorefractor validated the use of photoscreener as an accurate refraction method for the measurement of refractive errors in schoolchildren. The majority of the students received their glasses with ready to Clip™ technology at the time of prescription.

Comparison between refraction measured by Spot Vision Screening™ and subjective clinical refractometry.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of Spot Vision Screening™ as an autorefractor by comparing refraction measurements to subjective clinical refractometry results in children and adult patients. METHODS: One-hundred and thirty-four eyes of 134 patients were submitted to refractometry by Spot and clinical refractometry under cycloplegia. Patients, students, physicians, staff and children of staff from the Hospital das Clínicas (School of Medicine, University of São Paulo) aged 7-50 years without signs of ocular disease were examined. Only right-eye refraction data were analyzed. The findings were converted in magnitude vectors for analysis. RESULTS: The difference between Spot Vision Screening™ and subjective clinical refractometry expressed in spherical equivalents was +0.66±0.56 diopters (D), +0.16±0.27 D for the vector projected on the 90 axis and +0.02±0.15 D for the oblique vector. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the statistical significance of the difference between the two methods, we consider the difference non-relevant in a clinical setting, supporting the use of Spot Vision Screening™ as an ancillary method for estimating refraction.

Comparison between refraction measured by Spot Vision ScreeningTM and subjective clinical refractometry

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of Spot Vision ScreeningTM as an autorefractor by comparing refraction measurements to subjective clinical refractometry results in children and adult patients. METHODS: One-hundred and thirty-four eyes of 134 patients were submitted to refractometry by Spot and clinical refractometry under cycloplegia. Patients, students, physicians, staff and children of staff from the Hospital das Clínicas (School of Medicine, University of São Paulo) aged 7-50 years without signs of ocular disease were examined. Only right-eye refraction data were analyzed. The findings were converted in magnitude vectors for analysis. RESULTS: The difference between Spot Vision ScreeningTM and subjective clinical refractometry expressed in spherical equivalents was +0.66±0.56 diopters (D), +0.16±0.27 D for the vector projected on the 90 axis and +0.02±0.15 D for the oblique vector. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the statistical significance of the difference between the two methods, we consider the difference non-relevant in a clinical setting, supporting the use of Spot Vision ScreeningTM as an ancillary method for estimating refraction.

An evaluation of estimation methods for determining addition in presbyopes.

PURPOSE: The optical correction of presbyopia must be handled individually. Our aim was to compare the methods used in addition to the refractive near vision, with the final addition used in presbyopic patients. METHODS: Eighty healthy subjects with a mean age of 49.7 years (range 40 to 60 years) were studied. Tentative near additions were determined using four different techniques: one-half amplitude accommodation with minus lenses (AAL); one-third accommodative demand with positive lens (ADL); balanced range of accommodation with minus and positive lenses (BRA) and crossed cylinder test with initial myopisation (CCT). The power of the addition was then refined to arrive at the final addition. RESULTS: The mean tentative near additions were lower than the final addition for ADL and BRA addition methods. The mean differences between tentative and final additions were low for all the tests examined (less than 0.25 D). The intervals between the 95% limits of agreement differed substantially and were always higher than ±0.50 D. CONCLUSION: All the methods used displayed similar behavior and provided a tentative addition close to the final addition. The coefficient of agreements (COA) detected suggests that every tentative addition should be adjusted according to the particular needs of the patient.

An evaluation of estimation methods for determining addition in presbyopes / Avaliação de diferentes métodos para determinar adição em présbitas

PURPOSE: The optical correction of presbyopia must be handled individually. Our aim was to compare the methods used in addition to the refractive near vision, with the final addition used in presbyopic patients. METHODS: Eighty healthy subjects with a mean age of 49.7 years (range 40 to 60 years) were studied. Tentative near additions were determined using four different techniques: one-half amplitude accommodation with minus lenses (AAL); one-third accommodative demand with positive lens (ADL); balanced range of accommodation with minus and positive lenses (BRA) and crossed cylinder test with initial myopisation (CCT). The power of the addition was then refined to arrive at the final addition. RESULTS: The mean tentative near additions were lower than the final addition for ADL and BRA addition methods. The mean differences between tentative and final additions were low for all the tests examined (less than 0.25 D). The intervals between the 95% limits of agreement differed substantially and were always higher than ±0.50 D. CONCLUSION: All the methods used displayed similar behavior and provided a tentative addition close to the final addition. The coefficient of agreements (COA) detected suggests that every tentative addition should be adjusted according to the particular needs of the patient.

OBJETIVO: A correção óptica da presbiopia deve ser manejada individualmente. Nosso intuito é de comparar os métodos usados para calcular a adição na elaboração do grau para perto em pacientes présbitas. MÉTODOS: Oitenta pacientes com média de idade de 49,7 anos (intervalo de 40 a 60 anos) foram estudados. Adições provisórias foram determinadas usando quatro diferentes técnicas: metade da amplitude de acomodação com lentes negativas (AAL); um terço da demanda acomodativa com lentes positivas (ADL); média aritmética da acomodação usando lentes positivas e negativas (BRA); teste com o cilindro cruzado com miopização (CCT). O grau final foi refinado até chegar a graduação final da adição. RESULTADOS: A média das adições nos testes foram menores que as adições finais nos métodos ADL e BRA. As diferenças médias entre os testes e o grau final foram baixas em todos os métodos (menores que +0,25 D). Os intervalos entre os 95% dos limites da concordância diferenciaram substancialmente e foram todos maiores que ±0.50 D. CONCLUSÃO: Todos os métodos usados demonstraram comportamentos similares e forneceram resultados bem próximos da adição final. O coeficiente de concordância (COA) detectado, sugere que todos os métodos utilizados devem ser ajustados de acordo com as necessidades do paciente.