AUTHOR=Yan Qi , Li Rui , Qian YingXiao , Lin Xiao , Zhu Hui , Wang Yue , Zhao Xiaoyan , Zhang Xiaohan , Sun Qigang , Hao Qingfeng , Tong Haohai , Zhu Yue , Li Zhitong , Zhu Yan , Liu Hu , Huang Dan TITLE=Instrument referral criteria for PlusoptiX and SureSight based on 2021 AAPOS guidelines: A population-based study JOURNAL=Frontiers in Public Health VOLUME=10 YEAR=2022 URL=https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/public-health/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2022.959757 DOI=10.3389/fpubh.2022.959757 ISSN=2296-2565 ABSTRACT=Objective

The study aims to assess two refractive instrument-based methods of vision screening (SureSight and PlusoptiX) to detect refractive amblyopia risk factors (ARFs) and significant refractive errors in Chinese preschool children and to develop referral criteria according to the 2021 AAPOS guidelines.

Methods

Eye examinations were conducted in children aged 61 to 72 months (n = 1,173) using a PlusoptiX photoscreener, SureSight autorefractor, and cycloplegic retinoscopy (CR). The Vision Screening Committee of AAPOS's preschool vision screening guidelines from 2021 were adopted for comparison. Paired t-test analysis and Bland–Altman plots were used to assess the differences and agreement between the PlusoptiX photoscreener, SureSight autorefractor, and CR. In addition, the validity of the cut-off values of the several ARFs measured with the SureSight and PlusoptiX was estimated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and compared to the age-based 2021 AAPOS examination failure levels.

Results

A total of 1,173 children were tested with comprehensive eye examinations. When the referral numbers based on the 2013 (43/3.67%) and 2021 (42/3.58%) AAPOS guidelines were compared, significant differences between the values of astigmatism (72.09 vs. 52.38%) and anisometropia (11.63 vs. 38.10%) were found. The 95% limits of agreement (LOA) of the spherical value and the cylindrical value between PlusoptiX and CR were 95.08 and 96.29%. It was 93.87 and 98.10% between SureSight and CR. Considering refractive failure levels, the ROC curves obtained the optimal cut-off points. However, the PlusoptiX and the SureSight showed lower efficiency in hyperopia (Youden index, 0.60 vs. 0.83) and myopia (Youden index, 078 vs. 0.93), respectively. After adjusting the above cut-off points, the optimized NES (Nanjing Eye Study) referral criteria for myopia, hyperopia, astigmatism, and anisometropia were –0.75, 1.25, –1.0, and 0.5 with PlusoptiX and –1.25, 2.75, –1.5, and 0.75 with SureSight.

Conclusions

SureSight and PlusoptiX showed a good correlation with CR and could effectively detect refractive ARFs and visually significant refractive errors. There were obvious advantages in detecting hyperopia using SureSight and myopia using PlusoptiX. We proposed instrumental referral criteria for age-based preschool children based on AAPOS 2021 guidelines.