{"title":"PlusoptiX A16 与视力筛查仪 V100 的比较。","authors":"Jorge Jorge, Paulo Fernandes","doi":"10.3389/fopht.2024.1414417","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Clinical relevance: </strong>This study compares a novel photoscreening device with a previously validated one in a school-age population. It highlights a tendency of the new device to underestimate myopic spherical equivalent and overestimate hyperopic cases.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare the PlusoptiX A16 and Vision Screener V100 photoscreeners in a study population of school-age children.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>One hundred and thirty-three children, with a mean age of 6.4 ± 0.5 years, were evaluated using both the PlusoptiX A16 and Vision Screener V100 photoscreeners. The measurements were taken in random order in a room with diminished ambient lighting.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean refractive error values for the M component were 0.27 ± 0.67D (PlusoptiX A16) and 0.21 ± 0.58D (Vision Screener V100). For the J0 component, means were 0.16 ± 0.38D (PlusoptiX A16) and 0.06 ± 0.33D (Vision Screener V100) and for theJ45 component the means were 0.03 ± 0.17D (PlusoptiX A16) and 0.06 ± 0.22D (Vision Screener V100). When compared both instruments, statistically significant differences were observed for the M (p=0.017) and J0 (p=0.004) components. The agreement rates between PlusoptiX A16 and Vision Screener V100 across different refractive components were 80.5% for sphere, 82.0% for cylinder, and 40.6% for axis when considering a range of ±0.75 D for sphere and cylinder and ±25.0 degrees for cylinder axis. Simultaneously considering all three conditions, the overall agreement was 73.7%.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The Vision Screener V100, while generally aligning well with PlusoptiX A16, tends to underestimate myopic spherical equivalent, overestimate hyperopic cases, and underestimate J0 astigmatism.</p>","PeriodicalId":73096,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in ophthalmology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11464491/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of the PlusoptiX A16 and vision screener V100.\",\"authors\":\"Jorge Jorge, Paulo Fernandes\",\"doi\":\"10.3389/fopht.2024.1414417\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Clinical relevance: </strong>This study compares a novel photoscreening device with a previously validated one in a school-age population. It highlights a tendency of the new device to underestimate myopic spherical equivalent and overestimate hyperopic cases.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare the PlusoptiX A16 and Vision Screener V100 photoscreeners in a study population of school-age children.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>One hundred and thirty-three children, with a mean age of 6.4 ± 0.5 years, were evaluated using both the PlusoptiX A16 and Vision Screener V100 photoscreeners. The measurements were taken in random order in a room with diminished ambient lighting.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean refractive error values for the M component were 0.27 ± 0.67D (PlusoptiX A16) and 0.21 ± 0.58D (Vision Screener V100). For the J0 component, means were 0.16 ± 0.38D (PlusoptiX A16) and 0.06 ± 0.33D (Vision Screener V100) and for theJ45 component the means were 0.03 ± 0.17D (PlusoptiX A16) and 0.06 ± 0.22D (Vision Screener V100). When compared both instruments, statistically significant differences were observed for the M (p=0.017) and J0 (p=0.004) components. The agreement rates between PlusoptiX A16 and Vision Screener V100 across different refractive components were 80.5% for sphere, 82.0% for cylinder, and 40.6% for axis when considering a range of ±0.75 D for sphere and cylinder and ±25.0 degrees for cylinder axis. Simultaneously considering all three conditions, the overall agreement was 73.7%.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The Vision Screener V100, while generally aligning well with PlusoptiX A16, tends to underestimate myopic spherical equivalent, overestimate hyperopic cases, and underestimate J0 astigmatism.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73096,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Frontiers in ophthalmology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11464491/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Frontiers in ophthalmology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3389/fopht.2024.1414417\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in ophthalmology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fopht.2024.1414417","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparison of the PlusoptiX A16 and vision screener V100.
Clinical relevance: This study compares a novel photoscreening device with a previously validated one in a school-age population. It highlights a tendency of the new device to underestimate myopic spherical equivalent and overestimate hyperopic cases.
Purpose: To compare the PlusoptiX A16 and Vision Screener V100 photoscreeners in a study population of school-age children.
Methods: One hundred and thirty-three children, with a mean age of 6.4 ± 0.5 years, were evaluated using both the PlusoptiX A16 and Vision Screener V100 photoscreeners. The measurements were taken in random order in a room with diminished ambient lighting.
Results: The mean refractive error values for the M component were 0.27 ± 0.67D (PlusoptiX A16) and 0.21 ± 0.58D (Vision Screener V100). For the J0 component, means were 0.16 ± 0.38D (PlusoptiX A16) and 0.06 ± 0.33D (Vision Screener V100) and for theJ45 component the means were 0.03 ± 0.17D (PlusoptiX A16) and 0.06 ± 0.22D (Vision Screener V100). When compared both instruments, statistically significant differences were observed for the M (p=0.017) and J0 (p=0.004) components. The agreement rates between PlusoptiX A16 and Vision Screener V100 across different refractive components were 80.5% for sphere, 82.0% for cylinder, and 40.6% for axis when considering a range of ±0.75 D for sphere and cylinder and ±25.0 degrees for cylinder axis. Simultaneously considering all three conditions, the overall agreement was 73.7%.
Conclusion: The Vision Screener V100, while generally aligning well with PlusoptiX A16, tends to underestimate myopic spherical equivalent, overestimate hyperopic cases, and underestimate J0 astigmatism.