Comparison of preschool vision screening tests as administered by licensed eye care professionals in the Vision In Preschoolers Study

Paulette Schmidt; Maureen Maguire; Velma Dobson; Graham Quinn; Elise Ciner; Lynn Cyert; Marjean Taylor Kulp; Bruce Moore; Deborah Orel-Bixler; Maryann Redford; Gui-shuang Ying; The Vision in Preschoolers Study Group

doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2004.01.022

To compare 11 preschool vision screening tests administered by licensed eye care professionals (LEPs; optometrists and pediatric ophthalmologists).PURPOSETo compare 11 preschool vision screening tests administered by licensed eye care professionals (LEPs; optometrists and pediatric ophthalmologists).Multicenter, cross-sectional study.DESIGNMulticenter, cross-sectional study.A sample (N = 2588) of 3- to 5-year-old children enrolled in Head Start was selected to over-represent children with vision problems.PARTICIPANTSA sample (N = 2588) of 3- to 5-year-old children enrolled in Head Start was selected to over-represent children with vision problems.Certified LEPs administered 11 commonly used or commercially available screening tests. Results from a standardized comprehensive eye examination were used to classify children with respect to 4 targeted conditions: amblyopia, strabismus, significant refractive error, and unexplained reduced visual acuity (VA).METHODSCertified LEPs administered 11 commonly used or commercially available screening tests. Results from a standardized comprehensive eye examination were used to classify children with respect to 4 targeted conditions: amblyopia, strabismus, significant refractive error, and unexplained reduced visual acuity (VA).Sensitivity for detecting children with > or =1 targeted conditions at selected levels of specificity was the primary outcome measure. Sensitivity also was calculated for detecting conditions grouped into 3 levels of importance.MAIN OUTCOME MEASURESSensitivity for detecting children with > or =1 targeted conditions at selected levels of specificity was the primary outcome measure. Sensitivity also was calculated for detecting conditions grouped into 3 levels of importance.At 90% specificity, sensitivities of noncycloplegic retinoscopy (NCR) (64%), the Retinomax Autorefractor (63%), SureSight Vision Screener (63%), and Lea Symbols test (61%) were similar. Sensitivities of the Power Refractor II (54%) and HOTV VA test (54%) were similar to each other. Sensitivities of the Random Dot E stereoacuity (42%) and Stereo Smile II (44%) tests were similar to each other and lower (P<0.0001) than the sensitivities of NCR, the 2 autorefractors, and the Lea Symbols test. The cover-uncover test had very low sensitivity (16%) but very high specificity (98%). Sensitivity for conditions considered the most important to detect was 80% to 90% for the 2 autorefractors and NCR. Central interpretations for the MTI and iScreen photoscreeners each yielded 94% specificity and 37% sensitivity. At 94% specificity, the sensitivities were significantly better for NCR, the 2 autorefractors, and the Lea Symbols VA test than for the 2 photoscreeners for detecting > or =1 targeted conditions and for detecting the most important conditions.RESULTSAt 90% specificity, sensitivities of noncycloplegic retinoscopy (NCR) (64%), the Retinomax Autorefractor (63%), SureSight Vision Screener (63%), and Lea Symbols test (61%) were similar. Sensitivities of the Power Refractor II (54%) and HOTV VA test (54%) were similar to each other. Sensitivities of the Random Dot E stereoacuity (42%) and Stereo Smile II (44%) tests were similar to each other and lower (P<0.0001) than the sensitivities of NCR, the 2 autorefractors, and the Lea Symbols test. The cover-uncover test had very low sensitivity (16%) but very high specificity (98%). Sensitivity for conditions considered the most important to detect was 80% to 90% for the 2 autorefractors and NCR. Central interpretations for the MTI and iScreen photoscreeners each yielded 94% specificity and 37% sensitivity. At 94% specificity, the sensitivities were significantly better for NCR, the 2 autorefractors, and the Lea Symbols VA test than for the 2 photoscreeners for detecting > or =1 targeted conditions and for detecting the most important conditions.Screening tests administered by LEPs vary widely in performance. With 90% specificity, the best tests detected only two thirds of children having > or =1 targeted conditions, but nearly 90% of children with the most important conditions. The 2 tests that use static photorefractive technology were less accurate than 3 tests that assess refractive error in other ways. These results have important implications for screening preschool-aged children.CONCLUSIONSScreening tests administered by LEPs vary widely in performance. With 90% specificity, the best tests detected only two thirds of children having > or =1 targeted conditions, but nearly 90% of children with the most important conditions. The 2 tests that use static photorefractive technology were less accurate than 3 tests that assess refractive error in other ways. These results have important implications for screening preschool-aged children.

Comparison of preschool vision screening tests as administered by licensed eye care professionals in the Vision In Preschoolers Study

Files and links (1)

Abstract

Metrics

Details

UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

InCites Highlights

Comparison of preschool vision screening tests as administered by licensed eye care professionals in the Vision In Preschoolers Study

Files and links (1)

Abstract

Metrics

Details

UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

InCites Highlights

Drexel University Social media