Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://dora.health.qld.gov.au/qldresearchjspui/handle/1/2356
Title: | Community based vision screening in preschool children; performance of the Spot Vision Screener and optotype testing | Authors: | Gole, G. Beckman, T. Shah, S. P. Kapoor, V. |
Issue Date: | 2021 | Source: | , 2021 | Journal: | Ophthalmic Epidemiology | Abstract: | Background: Children’s vision screening children commonly uses optotype-based visual acuity or instrument-based methods measuring amblyogenic risk factors (ARFs). Objective: To compare the performance of the Spot Vision Screener (SVS) (PediaVision, Welch Allyn, NY) and a nurse-administered visual acuity screen (NVAS) in identifying ARFs and decreased visual acuity. Methods: A prospective, cross-sectional population-based study of preschool children in South-East Queensland, Australia. Eligible participants had both forms of screening by trained community nurses. All children with an abnormal result by either method as well as a cohort of randomly selected children who passed both assessments were assessed at a tertiary paediatric ophthalmology clinic. Results: Over a 10 month period, 2237 children (mean age; 64.4 ± 4.0 months) were screened from 38 schools. 6.4% of children failed SVS and 8.3% failed NVAS (with 3.8% overlap, failing both). The positive predictive value (PPV) in identifying either ARFs and/or reduced VA for the SVS and NVAS was 70.4% (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 61.6%–78.2%) and 60.5% (95% CI: 52.6%–67.9%) respectively. Highest PPV to detect either ARFs and/or reduced VA was achieved by a ‘hybrid’ method by combining failed NVAS and failed SVS: 91.0% (95% CI: 82.4 to 96.3) but this would risk children with sight impairment being missed in the community. Conclusion: To our knowledge, this is the first population-based study providing detailed comparative measures of diagnostic accuracy for NVAS and SVS in preschool children. One in ten preschool children failed one or both screens. A number of children who required ophthalmic intervention were missed if only one screening method was utilized.L20135099742021-08-26 | DOI: | 10.1080/09286586.2021.1962918 | Resources: | https://www.embase.com/search/results?subaction=viewrecord&id=L2013509974&from=exporthttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09286586.2021.1962918 | | Keywords: | prospective study;Queensland;risk factor;vision test;visual acuity;randomized controlled trial;adultamblyopia;article;child;cohort analysis;controlled study;diagnostic accuracy;diagnostic test accuracy study;female;human;human experiment;major clinical study;male;middle aged;nurse;ophthalmology;predictive value | Type: | Article |
Appears in Sites: | Children's Health Queensland Publications |
Show full item record
Items in DORA are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.