April 2011
Volume 52, Issue 14
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   April 2011
Validity of Noncycloplegic Retinoscopy, Retinomax Autorefractor and SureSight Vision Screener for Detecting Significant Refractive Errors
Marjean T. Kulp; Gui-Shuang Ying; Jiayan Huang; Maureen G. Maguire; Graham E. Quinn; Elise Ciner; Lynn A. Cyert; Bruce Moore; Deborah A. Orel-Bixler; Vision In Preschoolers Study Group
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Marjean T. Kulp
    College of Optometry, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
  • Gui-Shuang Ying
    Ophthalmology, Scheie Eye Institute, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
  • Jiayan Huang
    Ophthalmology, Scheie Eye Institute, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
  • Maureen G. Maguire
    Ophthalmology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
  • Graham E. Quinn
    Pediatric Ophthalmology, Childrens Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
  • Elise Ciner
    Salus University, Elkins Park, Pennsylvania
  • Lynn A. Cyert
    Oklahoma College of Optometry, Northeastern State Univ, Tahlequah, Oklahoma
  • Bruce Moore
    New England College of Optometry, Boston, Massachusetts
  • Deborah A. Orel-Bixler
    School of Optometry, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, California
  • Vision In Preschoolers Study Group
    College of Optometry, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  Marjean T. Kulp, None; Gui-Shuang Ying, None; Jiayan Huang, None; Maureen G. Maguire, None; Graham E. Quinn, None; Elise Ciner, None; Lynn A. Cyert, None; Bruce Moore, None; Deborah A. Orel-Bixler, None
  • Footnotes
    Support  NEI/NIH, DHHS grants: U10EY12644; U10EY12547; U10EY12545; U10EY12550; U10EY12534; U10EY12647; U10EY12648 and R21EY018908
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science April 2011, Vol.52, 1601. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      User Alerts
      You are adding an alert for:
      Validity of Noncycloplegic Retinoscopy, Retinomax Autorefractor and SureSight Vision Screener for Detecting Significant Refractive Errors
      You will receive an email whenever this article is corrected, updated, or cited in the literature. You can manage this and all other alerts in My Account
      The alert will be sent to:
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation
      Citation

      Marjean T. Kulp, Gui-Shuang Ying, Jiayan Huang, Maureen G. Maguire, Graham E. Quinn, Elise Ciner, Lynn A. Cyert, Bruce Moore, Deborah A. Orel-Bixler, Vision In Preschoolers Study Group; Validity of Noncycloplegic Retinoscopy, Retinomax Autorefractor and SureSight Vision Screener for Detecting Significant Refractive Errors. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2011;52(14):1601.

      Download citation file:

      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
    • Get Permissions
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose: : To evaluate, by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, the ability of non-cycloplegic retinoscopy (NCR), Retinomax Autorefractor (Rmax) and SureSight Vision Screener (SSight) to detect significant refractive errors (RE) among 3- to 5-year-old Head Start children.

Methods: : In the 2-year VIP Phase I, 2588 preschoolers were screened with NCR, Rmax and SSight by pediatric eye care professionals. In VIP Phase II, 1452 preschoolers were screened with Rmax and SSight by nurse and lay screeners. All children underwent cycloplegic retinoscopy by masked examiners, and significant RE was defined as: hyperopia >+3.25D; myopia >-2.00D; astigmatism >1.50D; and anisometropia >1.00D interocular difference in hyperopia, or >3.00D interocular difference in myopia, or >1.50D interocular difference in astigmatism. The ability of each screening test to identify any significant RE and by RE type and by severity was summarized by the area under the ROC curve (AUC), calculated from weighted logistic regression models. Detection of RE type was based upon the child’s worse eye and using the following SSight, Rmax, and NCR

Results: : most positive meridian for hyperopia, most negative meridian for myopia, cylinder power for astigmatism, and maximum intereye difference in sphere and cylinder for anisometropia.Results: AUC was better for detecting the most severe levels of RE only than for the most and moderately severe levels combined (AUC .97 to 1.00 vs. .92 to .96). AUC of each screening test was high for myopia (AUC .97 to .99). NCR and Rmax performed better than SSight for hyperopia (AUC .92 to .99 and .90 to .98 vs. .85 to .94, p≤0.02), Rmax performed better than NCR for astigmatism (AUC .95 to .97 vs. .90 to .96, p=0.01), and SSight performed better than Rmax for anisometropia (AUC .85 to 1.00 vs. .76 to .96, p≤0.01).

Conclusions: : No test consistently outperformed the others. AUC was excellent for the most severe levels of RE and very good for detection of significant RE overall.

Keywords: refraction • hyperopia • astigmatism 
© 2011, The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, Inc., all rights reserved. Permission to republish any abstract or part of an abstract in any form must be obtained in writing from the ARVO Office prior to publication.
Copyright © 2024 Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology.
×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×
This site uses cookies. By continuing to use our website, you are agreeing to our privacy policy.Accept