Accuracy of the Spot and Plusoptix photoscreeners for detection of astigmatism.
Accuracy of the Spot and Plusoptix photoscreeners for detection of astigmatism.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.jaapos.2015.07.284
复制
发表时间：
2015-10
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Harvey EM
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Crescioni M;Miller JM;Harvey EM
旨在评估 Spot (V2.0.16) 和 Plusoptix S12 (ROC4、V6.1.4.0) 光筛查仪在散光患病率高的人群中检测符合 AAPOS 转诊标准的散光的准确性。对 Tohono O’odham 保留地的 3 至 8 年级学生进行了检查。尝试使用 Spot 和 Plusoptix 光筛选仪进行筛选。将结果与散瞳验光进行比较。未提供屈光不正估计的筛查尝试被视为失败/转诊。使用 AAPOS 转诊标准确定屈光不正检测的敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值 (PPV) 和阴性预测值 (NPV)，并对散光测量进行受试者工作特征曲线下面积 (ROC AUC) 分析。使用t检验和相关分析来评估筛查和散光散光、等效球镜和屈光参差的散光屈光测量之间的一致性。共有209名学生参与其中。其中 116 人（55%）符合散光验光检查阳性标准，其中 105 人（90%）符合散光标准。 Spot 的测量成功率为 97%，Plusoptix 的测量成功率为 54%。比较 Spot 和 Plusoptix，屈光不正检测的灵敏度分别为 96% 和 100%，特异性分别为 87% 和 61%，PPV 分别为 90% 和 76%，NPV 分别为 94% 和 100%。两名筛查人员都高估了散光 1/3 D 至 2/3 D。散光的 AUC 在 Spot 中为 0.97，在 Plusoptix 中为 0.83。在这个高度散光人群中，Spot 和 Plusoptix 具有相似的灵敏度，但 Spot 具有更好的特异性和测量成功率。与散光率较低的研究样本的结果相比，我们的结果强调需要评估筛查仪器检测个别类型屈光不正的能力。
To evaluate the accuracy of the Spot (V2.0.16) and Plusoptix S12 (ROC4, V6.1.4.0) photoscreeners in detecting astigmatism meeting AAPOS referral criteria in students from a population with high prevalence of astigmatism. Students attending grades 3–8 on the Tohono O’odham reservation were examined. Screening was attempted with both the Spot and Plusoptix photoscreeners. Results were compared to cycloplegic refraction. Screening attempts providing no estimate of refractive error were considered fail/refer. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) for detection of refractive errors were determined using AAPOS referral criteria and receiver operating characteristic area under the curve (ROC AUC) analysis was conducted for measures of astigmatism. Agreement between screening and cycloplegic refraction measurements of astigmatism, spherical equivalent, and anisometropia were assessed using t tests and correlation analyses. A total of 209 students were included. Of the total, 116 (55%) met examination-positive criteria based on cycloplegic refraction, with 105 of those (90%) meeting the criterion for astigmatism. Measurements success rates were 97% for Spot and 54% for Plusoptix. Comparing the Spot and the Plusoptix, sensitivity was 96% versus 100%, specificity was 87% versus 61%, PPV was 90% versus 76%, and NPV was 94% versus 100% for detection of refractive error. Both screeners overestimated astigmatism by 1/3 D to 2/3 D. AUC for astigmatism was 0.97 for Spot and 0.83 for Plusoptix. In this highly astigmatic population, the Spot and the Plusoptix had similar sensitivity, but the Spot had better specificity and measurement success rates. Compared with results from study samples with lower rates of astigmatism, our results highlight the need to assess the ability of screening instruments to detect individual types of refractive errors.