PMID- 11274067
OWN - NLM
STAT- MEDLINE
DCOM- 20010517
LR  - 20071114
IS  - 0146-0404 (Print)
IS  - 0146-0404 (Linking)
VI  - 42
IP  - 5
DP  - 2001 Apr
TI  - Comparison of preschool vision screening methods in a population with a high 
      prevalence of astigmatism.
PG  - 917-24
AB  - PURPOSE: To compare the effectiveness of four methods of screening 3- to 
      5-year-old children for astigmatism high enough to require spectacle correction. 
      METHODS: Lea Symbols Visual Acuity Screening (LSVAS), MTI Photoscreening (MTIPS), 
      Nidek KM-500 Keratometry Screening (KERS), and Retinomax K-Plus Noncycloplegic 
      Autorefraction Screening (NCARS) were attempted on 379 preschool children who are 
      members of a Native American tribe having a high prevalence of astigmatism that 
      is primarily corneal in origin. The need for spectacle correction was determined 
      by cycloplegic refraction. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves were 
      fit, confidence intervals were determined, and area under the curves was 
      compared. RESULTS: Astigmatism > or = 1.00 D was present in the right eye of 
      47.5% and in the left eye of 48.0% of children. Spectacles were prescribed for 
      children < 48 months of age who had cylinder > or = 2.00 D and children > or = 48 
      months who had cylinder > or = 1.50 D, with the result that 33% of subjects 
      required spectacles. Area under the ROC curve was 0.98 for NCARS, 0.92 for KERS, 
      0.78 for MTIPS, and 0.70 for LSVAS, and each of these values differed 
      significantly from the other three (all P < 0.007). Testability was significantly 
      higher for NCARS (99.5%) and KERS (99.7%) than for MTIPS (93.5%) and LSVAS 
      (92.0%). CONCLUSIONS: In a population that included many children with 
      astigmatism, objective, fully automated screening methods (NCARS and KERS) were 
      superior to both visual acuity screening and photoscreening with subjective 
      interpretation in identifying children who had astigmatism requiring spectacle 
      correction.
FAU - Miller, J M
AU  - Miller JM
AD  - Department of Ophthalmology, University of Arizona, Tucson 85711, USA. 
      jmiller@eyes.arizona.edu
FAU - Dobson, V
AU  - Dobson V
FAU - Harvey, E M
AU  - Harvey EM
FAU - Sherrill, D L
AU  - Sherrill DL
LA  - eng
GR  - EY11155/EY/NEI NIH HHS/United States
PT  - Comparative Study
PT  - Journal Article
PT  - Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.
PL  - United States
TA  - Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci
JT  - Investigative ophthalmology & visual science
JID - 7703701
SB  - IM
MH  - Amblyopia/diagnosis/ethnology/therapy
MH  - Arizona/epidemiology
MH  - Astigmatism/*diagnosis/ethnology/therapy
MH  - Child, Preschool
MH  - Eyeglasses
MH  - Female
MH  - Humans
MH  - *Indians, North American
MH  - Male
MH  - Predictive Value of Tests
MH  - Prevalence
MH  - ROC Curve
MH  - Refractive Errors/diagnosis/ethnology/therapy
MH  - Reproducibility of Results
MH  - Sensitivity and Specificity
MH  - Vision Screening/*methods
MH  - Visual Acuity
EDAT- 2001/03/29 10:00
MHDA- 2001/05/18 10:01
CRDT- 2001/03/29 10:00
PHST- 2001/03/29 10:00 [pubmed]
PHST- 2001/05/18 10:01 [medline]
PHST- 2001/03/29 10:00 [entrez]
PST - ppublish
SO  - Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2001 Apr;42(5):917-24.