Effect of age using Lea Symbols or HOTV for preschool vision screening.
Effect of age using Lea Symbols or HOTV for preschool vision screening.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1097/opx.0b013e3181c750b1
复制
发表时间：
2010-02
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Vision in Preschoolers (VIP) Study Group
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Vision in Preschoolers (VIP) Study Group
为了比较 Lea Symbols 和 HOTV 远距离视力 (VA) 测试的有效性，以 3 m 处的线性、拥挤格式单眼呈现，作为视力筛查测试来识别需要眼睛护理的 3 至 5 岁儿童。受试者为 1,142 名 3 至 5 岁的 Head Start 儿童，他们完成了全面的眼科检查，用于确定孩子是否患有一种或多种目标疾病：弱视、斜视、明显屈光不正或不明原因的视力下降。每个孩子都由蒙面考官对两项测试进行测试，测试顺序是随机确定的。所管理的视标尺寸是根据孩子 9 月 1 日入学时的年龄而定的。三岁的儿童使用 10/100、10/32、10/25 和 10/20 视标进行测试，而四岁的儿童则使用 10/100、10/25、10/20 和 10/16 视标进行测试。大多数儿童（>95%）完成了两项测试，没有统计学上的显着差异。通过/失败的截止值设置为产生尽可能接近 90% 的特异性。观察到的最大灵敏度差异是在三岁组（平均年龄 45.3 个月）中，其中检测 ≥1 个目标病症的灵敏度对于 Lea 符号为 61%，对于 HOTV 字母为 46%（差异 15%，95% 置信区间 {−0.01, 0.30}），检测第 1 组病症的灵敏度对于 Lea 符号为 83%，对于 HOTV 为 57%字母（差异 26%，95% 置信区间 {−0.01, 0.49}）。然而，这些差异或任何其他年龄组的敏感性差异均不具有统计学意义。对于三岁孩子来说，HOTV 字母的通过/失败标准比 Lea 符号大一行。大多数孩子完成了两项测试。虽然三岁儿童通过 Lea Symbols 测试获得了更好的敏锐度分数，但任何年龄组的测试之间的敏感性没有统计学上的显着差异。
To compare the effectiveness of the Lea Symbols and the HOTV distance visual acuity (VA) tests, presented monocularly in linear, crowded formats at 3 m, as vision screening tests to identify three- to five-year-old children in need of eye care. Subjects were 1,142 three- to five-year-old Head Start children who completed a comprehensive eye examination, used to determine if the child had one or more targeted conditions: amblyopia, strabismus, significant refractive error, or unexplained reduced VA. Each child was tested on both tests by masked examiners, with test order determined randomly. The optotype sizes administered were age-based according to the child’s age at school entry on September 1. Children age three were tested with 10/100, 10/32, 10/25, and 10/20 optotypes while those who were four were tested with 10/100, 10/25, 10/20, and 10/16 optotypes. Most children (>95%) completed both tests, with no statistically significant differences. Pass/fail cut-offs were set to yield specificities as close as possible to 90%. The largest sensitivity differences observed were in the three-year-old group (mean age 45.3 months), where the sensitivity for detection of ≥1 targeted conditions was 61% for the Lea Symbols and was 46% for the HOTV letters (difference 15%, 95% confidence interval {−0.01, 0.30}) and the sensitivity for detection of Group 1 conditions was 83% for the Lea Symbols and 57% for the HOTV letters (difference 26%, 95% confidence interval {−0.01, 0.49}). However, neither these differences nor any of the other age group sensitivity differences were statistically significant. For the three-year-olds, the pass/fail criterion was one line larger for the HOTV letters than for the Lea Symbols. Most children completed both tests. While the three-year-olds achieved better acuity scores with the Lea Symbols test, there were no statistically significant differences in sensitivity between tests for any age group.