May 2003
Volume 44, Issue 13
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   May 2003
Preschool Screening for Refractive Errors: Comparison of Two Non-Cycloplegic Methods
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • T.F. Buchner
    Ophthalmology, University Muenster, Muenster, Germany
  • U. Schnorbus
    Ophthalmology, University Muenster, Muenster, Germany
  • U.H. Grenzebach
    Ophthalmology, University Muenster, Muenster, Germany
  • H. Busse
    Ophthalmology, University Muenster, Muenster, Germany
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  T.F. Buchner, Welch Allyn F; U. Schnorbus, Welch Allyn F; U.H. Grenzebach, None; H. Busse, None.
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science May 2003, Vol.44, 4838. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      T.F. Buchner, U. Schnorbus, U.H. Grenzebach, H. Busse; Preschool Screening for Refractive Errors: Comparison of Two Non-Cycloplegic Methods . Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2003;44(13):4838.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Abstract: : Purpose: Refractive errors are a common cause of amblyopia. In case of an early detection and therapy a permanent reduction in visual acuity can be prevented. The purpose of the present study is to compare the effectiveness of two preschool screening strategies. Methods: 89 children aged 3.5 to 4.5 years were examined under authentic screening conditions in their kindergartens without cycloplegia. The H-test, a modification of the Swedish Kolt test, was used to measure the visual acuity (referral criteria 20/25). Refraction was examined using a handheld autorefractor. The results of objective refraction in cycloplegia were used as references. The necessity of spectacle prescription was defined according to the median responses of a survey of 334 AAPOS members (Miller JM, Harvey EM, 1998). The validity of both strategies is compared. Results: Sensitivity is higher for testing visual acuity (90.0%) than for automated refraction (73.3%). Specificity and positive predictive value are higher for automated refraction (79.7%, 64.7%) than for testing visual acuity (27.1%, 38.6%). The high percentage of false positive results would cause many unnecessary referrals. Conclusions: Screening by testing a single parameter (visual acuity or non-cycloplegic automated refraction) cannot be recommended due to the high rate of false positive results. Alternative strategies are discussed. The present study is supported by the Bertelsmann foundation.

Keywords: amblyopia • refraction • visual development: infancy and childhood 
×
×

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.

×