Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science Cover Image for Volume 64, Issue 8
June 2023
Volume 64, Issue 8
Open Access
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2023
Agreement between the Welch Allyn Spot Vision Screener and Cycloplegic Retinoscopy in Toddlers
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • John Daniel Twelker
    Ophthalmology, Banner University Medical Center Tucson, Tucson, Arizona, United States
  • Andrew W. Arthur
    El Rio Community Health Center, Tucson, Arizona, United States
  • Amy L. Davis
    Banner University Medical Center Tucson, Tucson, Arizona, United States
  • Leslie K. Dennis
    Banner University Medical Center Tucson, Tucson, Arizona, United States
  • Siomara G. Enriquez
    Banner University Medical Center Tucson, Tucson, Arizona, United States
  • Kimberly Gerhart
    Banner University Medical Center Tucson, Tucson, Arizona, United States
  • Paul Chiu-Hsieh Hsu
    Banner University Medical Center Tucson, Tucson, Arizona, United States
  • Sandra Marshall
    Banner University Medical Center Tucson, Tucson, Arizona, United States
  • Jenifer Martin
    Banner University Medical Center Tucson, Tucson, Arizona, United States
  • Eileen McGrath
    Banner University Medical Center Tucson, Tucson, Arizona, United States
  • Joseph M. Miller
    Banner University Medical Center Tucson, Tucson, Arizona, United States
  • Divya Ramesh
    Banner University Medical Center Tucson, Tucson, Arizona, United States
  • Erin M. Harvey
    Banner University Medical Center Tucson, Tucson, Arizona, United States
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   John Twelker None; Andrew Arthur None; Amy Davis None; Leslie Dennis None; Siomara Enriquez None; Kimberly Gerhart None; Paul Chiu-Hsieh Hsu None; Sandra Marshall None; Jenifer Martin None; Eileen McGrath None; Joseph Miller None; Divya Ramesh None; Erin Harvey None
  • Footnotes
    Support  NIH-NEI Grant UG1 EY029657
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2023, Vol.64, 1403. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      John Daniel Twelker, Andrew W. Arthur, Amy L. Davis, Leslie K. Dennis, Siomara G. Enriquez, Kimberly Gerhart, Paul Chiu-Hsieh Hsu, Sandra Marshall, Jenifer Martin, Eileen McGrath, Joseph M. Miller, Divya Ramesh, Erin M. Harvey; Agreement between the Welch Allyn Spot Vision Screener and Cycloplegic Retinoscopy in Toddlers. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2023;64(8):1403.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose : Photo-screening instruments are commonly utilized in school-aged pediatric populations. This study compared the results of a common photo-screener with cycloplegic retinoscopy in toddlers aged 12 to 36 months.

Methods : Toddlers were screened at a pediatric well-child check using the Welch Allyn Spot Vision Screener and referred for a complete eye exam if they failed the screening. The eye examination included repeating the Spot screening, assessment of ocular alignment, pupils, anterior segment, motility, the fundus, and cycloplegic retinoscopy conducted by an experienced retinoscopist who was masked to the Spot results. We compared the Spot measure to cycloplegic retinoscopy spherical equivalent (M), JO, and astigmatism. We defined a clinically significant difference in sphere to be 0.50D and 1.00D for astigmatism.

Results : One-hundred eighty-seven children were referred and completed a cycloplegic examination. Eight were excluded because the Spot was not able to obtain a reading, leaving a total of 178 subjects for analysis. The average age was 20.2 months (SD=6.7, range: 12.2 to 36.0 months) and the female:male ratio was 49:51. The right and left eye results were similar, so we reported the right eye only. The mean retinoscopy M was 0.76D (SD=1.43D) and the mean Spot M was 0.32D (SD=0.92D) for a difference of 0.44D (SD=1.20D,t-test<0.001). The mean retinoscopy J0 was 0.73D (SD=0.62D) and the mean Spot J0 was 0.71D (SD=0.70D) for a difference of 0.02D (SD=0.54D,t-test=0.004). The mean retinoscopy astigmatism was 1.69D (SD=0.92D) and the mean Spot astigmatism was 1.88D (SD=0.98D) for a difference of 0.19D (SD=0.86D,t-test=0.004). Comparing M, 58% showed a clinically significant difference 0.50D, while for the astigmatism 19% showed 1.00D difference between the two methods. The Spot tended to overestimate cylinder power compared to cycloplegic retinoscopy.

Conclusions : Cycloplegic retinoscopy found more hyperopic/less myopic sphere power. When using the Spot, this could result in under-referral for moderate to severe hyperopia. Cycloplegic retinoscopy showed lower astigmatism results as compared to the Spot. Using the Spot, about one in five subjects showed higher clinically significant cylinder.

This abstract was presented at the 2023 ARVO Annual Meeting, held in New Orleans, LA, April 23-27, 2023.

×
×

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.

×