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.