Year : 2018 | Volume
: 66 | Issue : 7 | Page : 934-
Commentary on: “Tribal Odisha Eye Disease Study # 4: Accuracy and utility of photorefraction for refractive error correction in tribal Odisha (India) school screening”
Arvind K Morya
Department of Ophthalmology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India
Arvind K Morya
Department of Ophthalmology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur, Rajasthan
|How to cite this article:|
Morya AK. Commentary on: “Tribal Odisha Eye Disease Study # 4: Accuracy and utility of photorefraction for refractive error correction in tribal Odisha (India) school screening”.Indian J Ophthalmol 2018;66:934-934
|How to cite this URL:|
Morya AK. Commentary on: “Tribal Odisha Eye Disease Study # 4: Accuracy and utility of photorefraction for refractive error correction in tribal Odisha (India) school screening”. Indian J Ophthalmol [serial online] 2018 [cited 2020 Jul 15 ];66:934-934
Available from: http://www.ijo.in/text.asp?2018/66/7/934/234992
Uncorrected refractive error is the most common cause of amblyopia and avoidable blindness in children. Low vision due to refractive error is detrimental for both psychological and physical development of kids. Timely screening of refractive error is of paramount importance especially in developing countries like India, where many children go undiagnosed due to lack of awareness and timely screening. The estimated prevalence of amblyopia worldwide is about 2%–5%. Underlying amblyogenic causes as reported in a study from South India were ametropia (50%), anisometropia (40.9%), strabismus (6.8%), visual deprivation (4.5%), and combined causes (2.2%)., Of all the causes of ametropia, astigmatism takes the lead followed by hypermetropia and least in myopia.
There are different ways of screening for amblyopia risk factors; one such way is photoscreening. Various photoscreeners such as plusoptiX, SureSight autorefractor, PediaVision SPOT, and 2WIN have been studied in previous literature. SPOT, 2WIN, and plusoptiX were compared and found to have similar level of sensitivity and specificity. These devices were used for screening of children with age range of R2 of 0.84 is significant enough to rely on. However, few important limitations should be kept in mind such as the range of refractive error reliably detectable by the machine, overestimation of hyperopic error, and underestimation of myopic error.
These devices can be easily carried by a team of optometrist or mid-level ophthalmic personnel or ophthalmic technician to remote places for screening. The reporting format given by the device is simple to understand which makes it user-friendly. However, it is important to understand that these photoscreener devices have been designed to assist in early detection of amblyopic risk factors and not to replace the traditional way of refractive error detection.
|1||Simons K. Preschool vision screening: Rationale, methodology and outcome. Surv Ophthalmol 1996;41:3-30.|
|2||Ganekal S, Jhanji V, Liang Y, Dorairaj S. Prevalence and etiology of amblyopia in Southern India: Results from screening of school children aged 5–15 years. Ophthalmic Epidemiol 2013;20:228-31.|
|3||Gupta M, Rana SK, Mittal SK, Sinha RN. Profile of amblyopia in school going (5-15 years) children at state level referral hospital in Uttarakhand. J Clin Diagn Res 2016;10:SC09.|
|4||Steele G, Ireland D, Block S. Cycloplegic autorefraction results in pre-school children using the Nikon Retinomax Plus and the Welch Allyn SureSight. Optom Vis Sci 2003;80:573-7.|