Comparison of preschool vision screening tests as administered by licensed eye care professionals in the vision in preschoolers study
Comparison of preschool vision screening tests as administered by licensed eye care professionals in the vision in preschoolers study
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.ophtha.2004.01.022
复制
发表时间：
2004-04-01
期刊：
影响因子：
13.7
通讯作者：
Redford, M
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Schmidt, P;Ciner, E;Redford, M
目的：比较11个学龄前视力筛查测试管理的持牌眼科护理专业人员设计：多中心，横断面研究。参与者：一个样本（N = 2588）的3至5岁儿童参加了头开始被选中，以过度代表儿童的视力问题。认证LEPs管理11常用或市售筛选测试。从一个标准化的综合眼科检查的结果被用来分类儿童方面的4个目标条件：弱视，斜视，显着的屈光不正，和不明原因的视力下降（VA）。主要结果措施：检测儿童大于或等于1的目标条件在选定的特异性水平的敏感性是主要的结果措施。灵敏度也被计算为检测条件分为3个levelofimportance.Results：在90%的特异性，非睫状肌麻痹视网膜检影（NCR）（64%），Retinomax自动验光仪（63%），SureSight视力筛查（63%），和莱亚符号测试（61%）的敏感性是相似的。Power Refractor II（54%）和HOTV VA试验（54%）的灵敏度彼此相似。随机点E立体视（42%）和立体微笑II（44%）测试的敏感性彼此相似，但较低（P
Purpose: To compare 11 preschool vision screening tests administered by licensed eye care professionals (LEPs; optometrists and pediatric ophthalmologists).Design: Multicenter, cross-sectional study.Participants: A sample (N = 2588) of 3- to 5-year-old children enrolled in Head Start was selected to over-represent children with vision problems.Methods: 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).Main Outcome Measures: Sensitivity for detecting children with greater than or equal to1 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.Results: 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