Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2014
Accuracy of noncycloplegic retinoscopy, retinomax autorefractor, and SureSight vision screener for detecting significant refractive errors.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kulp Marjean Taylor, Ying Gui-Shuang, Huang Jiayan, Maguire Maureen, Quinn Graham, Ciner Elise B, Cyert Lynn A, Orel-Bixler Deborah A, Moore Bruce D
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To evaluate, by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, the ability of noncycloplegic retinoscopy (NCR), Retinomax Autorefractor (Retinomax), and SureSight Vision Screener (SureSight) to detect significant refractive errors (RE) among preschoolers.
METHODS: Refraction results of eye care professionals using NCR, Retinomax, and SureSight (n = 2588) and of nurse and lay screeners using Retinomax and SureSight (n = 1452) were compared with masked cycloplegic retinoscopy results. Significant RE was defined as hyperopia greater than +3.25 diopters (D), myopia greater than 2.00 D, astigmatism greater than 1.50 D, and anisometropia greater than 1.00 D interocular difference in hyperopia, greater than 3.00 D interocular difference in myopia, or greater than 1.50 D interocular difference in astigmatism. The ability of each screening test to identify presence, type, and/or severity of significant RE was summarized by the area under the ROC curve (AUC) and calculated from weighted logistic regression models.
RESULTS: For detection of each type of significant RE, AUC of each test was high; AUC was better for detecting the most severe levels of RE than for all REs considered important to detect (AUC 0.97-1.00 vs. 0.92-0.93). The area under the curve of each screening test was high for myopia (AUC 0.97-0.99). Noncycloplegic retinoscopy and Retinomax performed better than SureSight for hyperopia (AUC 0.92-0.99 and 0.90-0.98 vs. 0.85-0.94, P ≤ 0.02), Retinomax performed better than NCR for astigmatism greater than 1.50 D (AUC 0.95 vs. 0.90, P = 0.01), and SureSight performed better than Retinomax for anisometropia (AUC 0.85-1.00 vs. 0.76-0.96, P ≤ 0.07). Performance was similar for nurse and lay screeners in detecting any significant RE (AUC 0.92-1.00 vs. 0.92-0.99).
CONCLUSIONS: Each test had a very high discriminatory power for detecting children with any significant RE.
METHODS: Refraction results of eye care professionals using NCR, Retinomax, and SureSight (n = 2588) and of nurse and lay screeners using Retinomax and SureSight (n = 1452) were compared with masked cycloplegic retinoscopy results. Significant RE was defined as hyperopia greater than +3.25 diopters (D), myopia greater than 2.00 D, astigmatism greater than 1.50 D, and anisometropia greater than 1.00 D interocular difference in hyperopia, greater than 3.00 D interocular difference in myopia, or greater than 1.50 D interocular difference in astigmatism. The ability of each screening test to identify presence, type, and/or severity of significant RE was summarized by the area under the ROC curve (AUC) and calculated from weighted logistic regression models.
RESULTS: For detection of each type of significant RE, AUC of each test was high; AUC was better for detecting the most severe levels of RE than for all REs considered important to detect (AUC 0.97-1.00 vs. 0.92-0.93). The area under the curve of each screening test was high for myopia (AUC 0.97-0.99). Noncycloplegic retinoscopy and Retinomax performed better than SureSight for hyperopia (AUC 0.92-0.99 and 0.90-0.98 vs. 0.85-0.94, P ≤ 0.02), Retinomax performed better than NCR for astigmatism greater than 1.50 D (AUC 0.95 vs. 0.90, P = 0.01), and SureSight performed better than Retinomax for anisometropia (AUC 0.85-1.00 vs. 0.76-0.96, P ≤ 0.07). Performance was similar for nurse and lay screeners in detecting any significant RE (AUC 0.92-1.00 vs. 0.92-0.99).
CONCLUSIONS: Each test had a very high discriminatory power for detecting children with any significant RE.