Analysis of risk factors associated with the high incidence of amblyopia in preterm infants at the corrected gestational age of 12 months.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the perinatal and in-hospital risk factors associated with the high incidence of amblyopia in preterm infants and to analyze the correlation between the amblyopia and neurodevelopment. METHODS: Children discharged from the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) at 12 months of corrected gestational age were retrospectively included in this study. Ocular screening was performed in children. At the risk of amblyopia was determined according to the American Academy of Ophthalmology Guidelines for automated preschool vision screening factors. Differences in perinatal characteristics, complications during hospitalization, and treatment modalities between the two groups of children were analyzed, and multifactorial logistic regression analysis was used to identify the independent risk factors for amblyopia. The results of developmental assessment were collected retrospectively to analyze the correlation between amblyopia and various aspects of neurological development. RESULTS: A total of 128 preterm infants, 30 in the amblyopia risk group and 98 in the non-amblyopia risk group, were included in this study. Univariate analysis showed that the amblyopia risk group had lower birth weights, higher rates of asphyxia, preterm brain white matter injury, bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD), intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH), sepsis during hospitalization, and higher rates of treatment with pulmonary surfactant (PS), blood transfusion, invasive ventilator, and levothyroxine. Logistic regression analysis showed that BPD in the neonatal period (odds ratio [OR] 8.355, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.492, 46.786), brain white matter injury (OR 16.742, 95% CI 0.684, 409.804), treatment with levothyroxine (OR 2.859, 95% CI 0.946, 8.639), and use of an invasive ventilator (OR 2.983, 95% CI 0.942, 9.445) were independent risk factors for amblyopia at 12 months of corrected gestational age, while the administration of glucocorticoids (OR 0.055, 95% CI 0.004, 0.737) was a protective factor. Regarding neurodevelopmental assessment, the number of infants with lagging fine motor development was greater in the amblyopia risk group. CONCLUSION: The presence of BPD in the neonatal period, brain white matter damage in preterm infants, and use of levothyroxine and invasive ventilator were high risk factors for amblyopia. The use of glucocorticoids therapy was a protective factor. Children with risk of amblyopia had a higher rate of poor fine motor development.

Validation of the 2WIN Corneal Reflexes App in children.

PURPOSE: To test the reliability and accuracy of the 2Win Refractometer Corneal Reflexes App (CR App) in detecting manifest strabismus in pediatric patients. METHODS: Prospective study involving 167 children with suspected strabismus (mean age 7.6 years; SD = 3.0, range 2-14 years) undergoing the CR App ocular alignment assessment (Pediatric Ophthalmologist) versus the alternate cover test with prism ocular alignment assessment for distance (Orthoptist) as the gold standard. The AAPOS 2013 guidelines for the detection of manifest strabismus in primary position (> 8 PD) were used. RESULTS: Total sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV for the CR App were 79.2%, 86.2%, 86.4%, and 78.9%, respectively. The overall inconclusive rate was 17.9%, but was 36.3% in children younger than 5. Sensitivity and PPV for vertical deviations were poor (33.3% and 12.5%, respectively). The accuracy of the CR App regarding the degree (in prism diopters) of manifest deviations was tested with the Wilcoxon signed rank sum test: correlation with the gold standard was good for esodeviations (p value = 0.765, not statistically significant) and poorer for exodeviations (p value = 0.056, still not statistically significant), whereas a significant difference (p value = 0.0001) was observed for vertical deviations. CONCLUSION: The CR App showed good sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV for manifest strabismus > 8PD in accordance with the AAPOS 2013 guidelines; sensitivity and PPV were poor for vertical deviations. The accuracy of the CR App was good for horizontal deviations, but poor for vertical deviations. The inconclusive result rate was high in younger children.

2020 Evaluation of Portable Vision Screening Instruments.

Amblyopia is the most common cause of preventable visual impairment in children and occurs as a result of unilateral or bilateral impairment in best-corrected visual acuity. Early diagnosis and proper treatment are crucial to prevent poor visual outcomes in adulthood. Advances in technology have provided more objective diagnostic tools, which can now be used by a wide range of healthcare providers. Here, we highlight tools that have gained popularity in the past two decades and compare clinically relevant parameters to guide primary care providers seeking to incorporate instrumental vision screening in pediatric patient care.

Objective vision screening using PlusoptiX for children aged 3-11 years in rural Turkey.

BACKGROUND: This population based cross sectional study was conducted to detect amblyopia risk factors and myopia in a rural district of Northwestern Turkey by using PlusoptiX S12R (Photoscreener PlusoptiX Inc., Nuremberg, Germany). METHODS: Children from 38 rural schools in Caycuma district of Zonguldak Turkey underwent vision screening in their school using PlusoptiX S12 photoscreener. Data were analyzed using the factory default level 5 referral criteria targeting 80% sensitivity and 95% specificity. Referral, unable readings, and positive predictive value (PPV) were reported. RESULTS: Data from 2846 children were analyzed. Mean age was 7.9 years (±0.8) (range 36 months to 11 years). Three hundred ten (11%) were referred of whom 32% were read as 'unable'. 150 children (48% of the referred) received a gold standard examination. Positive predictive value of PlusoptiX was 69%. PPV was 83% when unable readings were excluded. 93 children with amblyopia risk factors were identified. Only 26% (n = 25) had received glasses priorly. 49 children had amblyopia of whom 33 were newly diagnosed. CONCLUSIONS: PlusoptiX showed a reasonable level of positive predictive value in community setting and the device could be a useful tool for vision screening in preschoolers and schoolers. We found most of the amblyogenic refractive errors were underdiagnosed in rural school children leading to a call for action on vision screening.

Diagnostic test accuracy of Spot and Plusoptix photoscreeners in detecting amblyogenic risk factors in children: a systemic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Amblyopia is a permanent visual impairment developed in early childhood. Recently, instrument-based photoscreeners have been widely used for vision screening to detect amblyopia risk factors, which is key for the prevention and treatment of amblyopia. This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the diagnostic test accuracy of Spot and Plusoptix photoscreeners in detecting risk factors for amblyopia in children. METHODS: An electronic literature search was performed in October 2018 using the MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science databases. Twenty-one publications with a total of 5022 subjects were included. Subjects given a comprehensive examination were considered to have amblyopia or amblyogenic risk factors based on the American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus (AAPOS) referral criteria guidelines. RESULTS: The overall sensitivity for Spot and Plusoptix was 87.7% and 89.4%, respectively (p = 0.38); the specificity was 78.0% and 89.9%, respectively (p = 0.90). For subjects under 7 years old (preschool children), the overall sensitivity for Spot and Plusoptix was 91.7% and 90.2%, respectively (p = 0.81); the specificity was 82.6% and 93.0%, respectively (p = 0.46). CONCLUSION: Both Spot and Plusoptix photoscreeners demonstrated good sensitivity and specificity in detecting amblyopia risk factors in children, especially at preschool ages. There was no significant difference in diagnostic test accuracy between them.

Evaluation of cycloplegic and noncycloplegic performance of spot vision screener in detection of amblyopia risk factors using 2021 AAPOS guidelines.

PURPOSE: This research evaluates the effectiveness of the Spot Vision Screener (SVS) before and after cycloplegia to detect amblyogenic refractive errors in children. METHODS: Children ages 3 to 10 years old were screened by the SVS before and after cycloplegia. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value, paired t-test, Bland-Altman plot and receiver operating characteristic area under the curve were evaluated by comparing the results of the SVS (v3.0.05) measurements with the results of the cycloplegic Topcon autorefractometer according to the 2021 guidelines of the American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus. RESULTS: Both eyes of 211 patients aged 3 to 10 years old were included. Regarding the amblyopia risk factors, the noncycloplegic SVS had 65.7 % sensitivity, 94.9 % specificity, 81.2 % positive predictive value and 89.3 % negative predictive value. The SVS's sensitivity increased from 65.7 % to 81.9 % with cycloplegia compared to noncycloplegic SVS results. The sensitivity detection of hyperopia was improved from 4.2 % to 100 % after cycloplegia. Areas under the receiver operator characteristic curve for noncycloplegic SVS and cycloplegic SVS were 0.506 (95 % CI, 0.395 to 0.646, p = 0737) and 0.905 (95 % CI, 0.915 to 0.971, p < 0.001) for hyperopia, respectively. Using the +1.64 D revised cutoff criteria for hyperopia increased sensitivity from 4.2 % to 78 %. CONCLUSION: Noncycloplegic SVS measurements showed relatively high specificity in detecting amblyopia risk factors. The fact that noncycloplegic measurements have a very low sensitivity for hyperopia is an important weakness of the SVS, especially because hyperopia is the most frequently encountered refractive error in very young children. It should be noted that amblyogenic hyperopia may be overlooked by an SVS without cycloplegia.

Measurement Accuracy When Using Spot Vision Screener With or Without Cycloplegia in Young Adults.

Purpose: There are many unclear points about the accuracy of measurement of cycloplegic refraction using the Spot Vision Screener (SVS). This study aimed to investigate the accuracy of SVS measurements with cycloplegia for myopia. Materials and Methods: Forty-nine healthy subjects were included, and refraction was measured. Objective refractions were measured by SVS, table-mounted autorefractometer (RT7000), and handheld autorefractometer (Retinomax Screeen) at noncycloplegic and cycloplegic conditions by 1% cyclopentolate. Subjective noncycloplegic refraction was obtained by a visual acuity and refraction test performed by certified orthoptists using a cross-cylinder. One-way repeated-measures analysis of variance was used to examine whether the measured refractions fluctuate due to different reflection tests. Results: In the noncycloplegic condition, the mean (±standard deviation) spherical equivalent (SE) measured by subjective method, SVS, RT7000, and Retinomax Screeen were -2.56 ± 3.00, -2.62 ± 2.38, -3.05 ± 2.84, and -3.26 ± 2.97, respectively. The subjective SE and objective SE measured by SVS had significantly less myopic value than the objective SE measured by two autorefractometers (p < 0.001). In the cycloplegic condition, the mean (± standard deviation) SE measured by SVS, RT7000, and Retinomax Screeen were -2.07 ± 2.66, -2.62 ± 2.98, and -2.66 ± 3.02, respectively. The objective SE measured by SVS had significantly less myopic value than SEs measured using other methods (p < 0.001). In the cycloplegic condition, SVS showed a fixed error wherein the SE was more hyperopic than that with the subjective method and SVS had a proportional error. Conclusion: In the measurement under cycloplegic conditions, use of an autorefractometer rather than a photorefractometer such as SVS was preferable.

Corrigendum: Automated screening devices for vision screening in preschool children: a comparison of the PlusoptiX S12C photoscreener and retinomax K+3 autorefractor.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/fopht.2022.1049622.].

Artificial intelligence-based screening for amblyopia and its risk factors: comparison with four classic stereovision tests.

Introduction: The development of costs-effective and sensitive screening solutions to prevent amblyopia and identify its risk factors (strabismus, refractive problems or mixed) is a significant priority of pediatric ophthalmology. The main objective of our study was to compare the classification performance of various vision screening tests, including classic, stereoacuity-based tests (Lang II, TNO, Stereo Fly, and Frisby), and non-stereoacuity-based, low-density static, dynamic, and noisy anaglyphic random dot stereograms. We determined whether the combination of non-stereoacuity-based tests integrated in the simplest artificial intelligence (AI) model could be an alternative method for vision screening. Methods: Our study, conducted in Spain and Hungary, is a non-experimental, cross-sectional diagnostic test assessment focused on pediatric eye conditions. Using convenience sampling, we enrolled 423 children aged 3.6-14 years, diagnosed with amblyopia, strabismus, or refractive errors, and compared them to age-matched emmetropic controls. Comprehensive pediatric ophthalmologic examinations ascertained diagnoses. Participants used filter glasses for stereovision tests and red-green goggles for an AI-based test over their prescribed glasses. Sensitivity, specificity, and the area under the ROC curve (AUC) were our metrics, with sensitivity being the primary endpoint. AUCs were analyzed using DeLong's method, and binary classifications (pathologic vs. normal) were evaluated using McNemar's matched pair and Fisher's nonparametric tests. Results: Four non-overlapping groups were studied: (1) amblyopia (n = 46), (2) amblyogenic (n = 55), (3) non-amblyogenic (n = 128), and (4) emmetropic (n = 194), and a fifth group that was a combination of the amblyopia and amblyogenic groups. Based on AUCs, the AI combination of non-stereoacuity-based tests showed significantly better performance 0.908, 95% CI: (0.829-0.958) for detecting amblyopia and its risk factors than most classical tests: Lang II: 0.704, (0.648-0.755), Stereo Fly: 0.780, (0.714-0.837), Frisby: 0.754 (0.688-0.812), p < 0.02, n = 91, DeLong's method). At the optimum ROC point, McNemar's test indicated significantly higher sensitivity in accord with AUCs. Moreover, the AI solution had significantly higher sensitivity than TNO (p = 0.046, N = 134, Fisher's test), as well, while the specificity did not differ. Discussion: The combination of multiple tests utilizing anaglyphic random dot stereograms with varying parameters (density, noise, dynamism) in AI leads to the most advanced and sensitive screening test for identifying amblyopia and amblyogenic conditions compared to all the other tests studied.

[Surgical treatment options for congenital/infantile corneal opacities and anterior segment dysgenesis]. / Chirurgische Therapieoptionen bei kongenitalen/kindlichen Hornhauttrübungen und Vorderabschnittsdysgenesien.

BACKGROUND: Due to the risk of amblyopia congenital and infantile corneal opacities have a narrow therapeutic window, frequently with a complex surgical treatment. OBJECTIVE: The present study gives an overview of the current treatment options for congenital and infantile corneal opacities. METHODS: The results of a literature search are presented and own clinical data and examples are shown. RESULTS: In children ophthalmologic operations are surgically more demanding and the prognosis is generally worse. Surgical options include phototherapeutic keratectomy, crosslinking, corneal sutures, sectoral iridectomy, block excision and lamellar, penetrating, and auto-keratoplasty. An equally important part of the treatment is conservative treatment, when necessary with bandage lenses, glasses, contact lenses and occlusion. DISCUSSION: Whenever possible treatment of congenital and infantile corneal opacities should be limited to the affected layers/areas. Nevertheless, children and parents have to be prepared for many examinations, sometimes with the patient under anesthesia and should be well-informed about the prognosis and the risks.

Comparative Validation of PlusoptiX and AI-Optic Photoscreeners in Children with High Amblyopia Risk Factor Prevalence.

Purpose: In 2022, an inexpensive multi-radial infrared photoscreener, the AI Optic was released in a similar format as the 2012 PlusoptiX a-12 but utilizing artificial intelligence (AI) for online, central image interpretation. We studied them because no prior comparative validation concerning amblyopia risk factors and particularly refractive error has been done. Patients and Methods: Children from a pediatric ophthalmology practice had AI Optic and PlusoptiX-a12 photoscreen concomitantly during comprehensive examination with precisely measured strabismus and refraction. Validation to AAPOS 2021 and 2013 guidelines was evaluated with receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves while refractive estimates were compared by the ABCD ellipsoid univariable technique. Results: In 200 ethnically diverse children aged 1-18, 148 were 4 years or older, 35% had developmental delays, and 2/3 had amblyopia risk factors (ARF). Area under the ROC curve (AUC) targeting AAPOS 2021 refractive plus strabismus for age ≥4 years was 0.58 for AI Optic and 0.74 for PlusoptiX while for children <4 years, AUC was 0.53 for AI Optic and 0.72 for PlusoptiX. For 134 comparable sphero-cylinder refractions, the ABCD Ellipsoid median (interquartile ranges) for AI Optic right eye 2.53 (1.54, 4.01) and left eye 3.05 (1.83, 5.00) did not approximate actual refraction as well as by PlusoptiX right eye 1.88 (1.12, 2.86) and left eye 2.10 (1.26, 3.04) Mann Whitney z=3.7 right and 4.2 left, p<0.001 each. AI Optic via central "AI" reading gave sphero-cylinder and referral estimates in all but 16 of 200 high risk children whereas Plusoptix had 25 inconclusives. On the other hand, with inconclusives scored as a refer, Plusoptix outperformed AI Optic in terms of ARF validation and refractive estimate. Conclusion: Plusoptix provided more valid amblyopia and refractive screening than the cheaper AI Optic. Clinics must weigh cost versus performance, and central data sharing before selecting one of these vision-saving devices.

The UCI EyeMobile Preschool Vision Screening Program: Refractive Error and Amblyopia Results from the 2019-2020 School Year.

Purpose: To introduce the University of California Irvine (UCI) EyeMobile for Children preschool vision screening program and describe the ophthalmic examination results of children who failed screening with the PlusoptiX S12C photoscreener during one school year. Patients and Methods: Children aged 30-72 months were screened with the PlusoptiX using ROC mode 3 during the 2019-2020 school year. Children who failed screening were referred for comprehensive eye examination on the EyeMobile mobile clinic. Presence of amblyopia risk factors (ARFs), amblyopia, and refractive error was determined via retrospective review of records. Amblyopia was defined as unilateral if there was ≥ 2-line interocular difference in the best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and as bilateral if BCVA was < 20/50 for children < 4 years old and < 20/40 for children ≥ 4 years old. ARFs were defined using 2021 American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus (AAPOS) instrument-based screening guidelines. Results: 5226 children were screened during the study period. Of the 546 children who failed screening, 350 (64%) obtained consent and were examined. Mean age of examined children was 4.45 years. Amblyopia was found in 8% of examined children, with unilateral amblyopia seen in 79% of amblyopic subjects. Glasses were prescribed to 246 (70.3%) children. Of the 240 children who received cycloplegic examinations, 43% had hyperopia and 30% had myopia. The positive predictive value (PPV) of the PlusoptiX screening for ARFs in children who received cycloplegic examinations was 70.4%. Conclusion: A significant proportion of Orange County preschoolers with refractive errors and amblyopia have unmet refractive correction needs. The PlusoptiX S12C photoscreener is an adequate screening device for the UCI EyeMobile for Children program, although modification of device referral criteria may lead to increased PPV. Further research is necessary to understand and overcome the barriers to childhood vision care in our community.

Instrument referral criteria for PlusoptiX and SureSight based on 2021 AAPOS guidelines: A population-based study.

Objective: The study aims to assess two refractive instrument-based methods of vision screening (SureSight and PlusoptiX) to detect refractive amblyopia risk factors (ARFs) and significant refractive errors in Chinese preschool children and to develop referral criteria according to the 2021 AAPOS guidelines. Methods: Eye examinations were conducted in children aged 61 to 72 months (n = 1,173) using a PlusoptiX photoscreener, SureSight autorefractor, and cycloplegic retinoscopy (CR). The Vision Screening Committee of AAPOS's preschool vision screening guidelines from 2021 were adopted for comparison. Paired t-test analysis and Bland-Altman plots were used to assess the differences and agreement between the PlusoptiX photoscreener, SureSight autorefractor, and CR. In addition, the validity of the cut-off values of the several ARFs measured with the SureSight and PlusoptiX was estimated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and compared to the age-based 2021 AAPOS examination failure levels. Results: A total of 1,173 children were tested with comprehensive eye examinations. When the referral numbers based on the 2013 (43/3.67%) and 2021 (42/3.58%) AAPOS guidelines were compared, significant differences between the values of astigmatism (72.09 vs. 52.38%) and anisometropia (11.63 vs. 38.10%) were found. The 95% limits of agreement (LOA) of the spherical value and the cylindrical value between PlusoptiX and CR were 95.08 and 96.29%. It was 93.87 and 98.10% between SureSight and CR. Considering refractive failure levels, the ROC curves obtained the optimal cut-off points. However, the PlusoptiX and the SureSight showed lower efficiency in hyperopia (Youden index, 0.60 vs. 0.83) and myopia (Youden index, 078 vs. 0.93), respectively. After adjusting the above cut-off points, the optimized NES (Nanjing Eye Study) referral criteria for myopia, hyperopia, astigmatism, and anisometropia were -0.75, 1.25, -1.0, and 0.5 with PlusoptiX and -1.25, 2.75, -1.5, and 0.75 with SureSight. Conclusions: SureSight and PlusoptiX showed a good correlation with CR and could effectively detect refractive ARFs and visually significant refractive errors. There were obvious advantages in detecting hyperopia using SureSight and myopia using PlusoptiX. We proposed instrumental referral criteria for age-based preschool children based on AAPOS 2021 guidelines.

Automated screening devices for vision screening in preschool children: A comparison of the PlusoptiX S12C photoscreener and retinomax K+3 autorefractor.

Introduction: Automated vision screening devices such as photoscreeners and autorefractors have been used to accurately identify amblyopia, refractive amblyopia risk factors (ARFs), and refractive error in young children; however, there is conflicting data about the effectiveness of different screening devices. We compared the performance of two commercially available screening devices in preschool children. Methods: Children aged 3 to 5 years attending 5 preschools in Anaheim Elementary School District were screened with the PlusoptiX S12C photoscreener using ROC 3 referral criteria and Retinomax K+3 autorefractor in March 2022. Screened children were offered free cycloplegic eye examinations performed by optometrists on the UCI EyeMobile for Children mobile clinic. Children were evaluated for the presence of refractive ARFs using 2021 American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus age-based referral criteria guidelines for instrument-based screening. Results: A total of 158 children were screened and 79 children received cycloplegic examinations. At least one refractive ARF was found in 20% of examined children, corresponding to a sensitivity/specificity/positive predictive value (PPV)/negative predictive value (NPV) of 94%/89%/68%/98% for the PlusoptiX and 100%/65%/42%/100% for the Retinomax. Discussion: In detecting refractive ARFs, the PlusoptiX was found to have a higher specificity and PPV while the Retinomax had a higher sensitivity and NPV. While both devices demonstrated a high sensitivity and NPV, we found that the PlusoptiX performed better overall as a screening device for our program as the Retinomax referred too many children.

Instrument Referral Criteria for PlusoptiX, SPOT and 2WIN Targeting 2021 AAPOS Guidelines.

BACKGROUND: The American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus (AAPOS) issued a 2021 update of Uniform Validation Guidelines for instrument-based pediatric vision screeners. With each update it is important for each manufacturer to update the Instrument Referral Criteria (IRC) programed into their devices in order to optimize sensitivity and specificity to detect AAPOS criteria. METHODS: De-identified data comparing photoscreening with simultaneous confirmatory examinations constituted separate cohorts for the development of IRC via receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. The refractions of the devices were also compared. RESULTS: This study defines three sets of refractive IRC (Sensitive, Medium, and Specific) for three leading infrared photoscreening devices, PlusoptiX A12, Welch-Allyn SPOT, and Adaptica 2WIN for children < 4 and ≥ 4 years in order to better target the 2021 AAPOS guidelines. The cohorts were similar but the SPOT group (n=755, mean age 9) was older with more astigmatism and the 2WIN (n=1362, mean age 7) was younger with more hyperopia and anisometropia compared to the cohort for PlusoptiX A12 (n=616, mean age 8). The age-based, medium magnitude IRC for anisometropia, hyperopia, astigmatism and myopia for SPOT were: <4y: 1.5, 1.75, 3.25, 3.5 and ≥4y: 1.5, 1.75, 2.25, 2.0; for PlusoptiX: <4y: 1.75, 3.0, 3.5, 3.5 and ≥4y: 1.75, 3.0, 2.5, 2.5; and for 2WIN: <4y: 1.75, 2.5, 3.5, 3.5 and ≥4y: 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 2.0. The mean ABCD ellipsoid spectacle matches differed; SPOT: 1.8±1.3 (better) versus PlusoptiX: 1.9±1.6 and 2WIN: 2.2±1.4 (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: The 2021 AAPOS exam guidelines foster early specificity before age 4 and sensitivity after age 4. These evidence-based IRC for current SPOT, PlusoptiX, and 2WIN photoscreeners should allow device manufacturers the data necessary to adjust their device IRC to maximize specificity, sensitivity or a medium between the two. This paper provides practical suggestions for better validation. Improved early screening combined with thorough treatment should reduce life-long vision impairment due to amblyopia.

Performance of Glow Fixation GoCheck Kids and 2WIN Photoscreeners and Retinomax to Uncover Hyperopia.

BACKGROUND: A low-detail, glowing fixation device was added to GoCheck Kids (GCK) photoscreener in the hope of unmasking hyperopia and amblyopia risk factors (ARF). METHODS: Pediatric eye patients were screened by GCK and 2WIN photoscreeners, and Retinomax autorefractor before being compared to AAPOS ARFs. RESULTS: Screening was attempted by 131 children who then had school bus accommodation-relaxing skiascopy (SBA-RS) before cycloplegic examination. By 2013 AAPOS uniform guidelines, sensitivity/specificity for GCK was 87%/68%, for 2WIN 87%/71% and for Retinomax 79%/68%. Detection of amblyopia had sensitivity/specificity by GCK of 78%/63%, for 2WIN 79%/65% and for Retinomax 77%/68%. Inconclusive screens were seven for GCK, six for 2WIN and 13 for Retinomax. Mean hyperopia for GCK (+2.49±0.74 D) was similar to cycloplegic refraction (+2.93±0.72 D) and SBA-RS (+2.80±0.82 D) while GCK was slightly more than Retinomax (+1.59±0.93 D, p=0.13) but significantly more than 2WIN (+1.02±0.49 D, p<0.01). CONCLUSION: GCK, 2WIN and Retinomax had similar validity detecting uniform amblyopia risk factors and amblyopia itself. The nondetailed glow fixation device allowed GCK to uncover substantial hyperopia while the detailed flashing fixation devices on 2WIN and Retinomax seemed to stimulate accommodation in some hyperopic children. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRY: NCT04297969. Data Access: http://www.abcd-vision.org/references/GCK%20glow%202WIN%20deidentify.pdf. PRÉCIS: A glow fixation device on a smart phone photoscreener allowed robust detection of hyperopia.

Comparative AAPOS Validation of the Birefringent Amblyopia Screener with Isolated Small-Angle Strabismus.

BACKGROUND: The Rebion blinq binocular birefringent ocular alignment screener was recently commercially released, but it did not yet have validation by American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus (AAPOS) uniform guidelines. METHODS: Children and adults from a high-risk eye practice had screening by blinq with validation by AAPOS 2003 guidelines. Then, the blinq was compared to the Adaptica 2WIN with CR corneal reflex strabismus estimation by AAPOS 2003 guidelines plus additional efforts to identify patients with diminished binocularity. RESULTS: Blinq in 100 patients compared to 2003 AAPOS amblyopia risk factors (ARF) had sensitivity 67%, specificity 75% and PPV of 82%. Both blinq and 2WIN were completed by 87 patients median age 6.5 years. Sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value (PPV) for blinq were 75%, 68% and 81% whereas 2WIN had 91%, 68% and 84%. The blinq referred two young patients with isolated, small-angle strabismic amblyopia that 2WIN refractive function passed. CONCLUSION: Despite its non-refractive design to identify binocular foveation, blinq performed well with refractive and strabismic uniform risk factors and a PPV greater than 80%. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRY: NCT04195711.