Dataset Information

Visual Profile of Children who Passed or Failed the UK School Vision Screening Protocol

ABSTRACT: Background: We applied the National Screening Committee vision screening protocol [pass criterion monocular acuity ? 0.2 LogMAR in both eyes(BE)] to children four to five years old to investigate the visual profile of children who passed/failed. Previous studies have only evaluated those failing. The aim was to derive false positive and negative values, specificity/sensitivity of the vision screening protocol for detecting significant visual defects (strabismus and/or significant refractive error) and the utility of a ‘plus blur test’ in identifying hyperopia. Methods: Participants included 294 children (5.2 ± 0.4 yrs). In addition to the vision screening protocol (monocular acuity–3 m crowded Keeler LogMAR letters), acuities were recorded through +2.50D and +4.00D lenses and ocular alignment and cycloplegic refractive error were assessed. Using acuity measures, participants were classed as passing/failing the screening protocol. Each participant was also classed as having a strabismus and/or significant refractive error (hyperopia ? +4.00DS; myopia ? –0.50DS; astigmatism ? –1.50DC; anisometropia ? +1.50DS) or no significant visual defects. Results: Of the 284 children who completed all tests, 27.8% failed to achieve 0.2 LogMAR in BE. The acuity pass/fail criterion had a sensitivity of 70.4% and specificity of 82.2% for detecting strabismus and/or significant refractive error. Of those who failed, 51.9% (n = 41/79) had no strabismus and/or significant refractive error (false positives). Of those who passed, 7.8% (n = 16/205) had visual defects (false negatives). The ‘plus blur tests’ improved sensitivity in detecting significant refractive error (+2.50D & +4.00D 90.7%) but significantly reduced specificity (+2.50D = 65.2%; +4.00D = 60.9%). Conclusions: School-entry vision screening is reasonably sensitive and specific for detecting strabismus and/or significant refractive error. Most children with visions poorer than 0.2 LogMAR need refractive intervention, and the majority of the remainder are likely false positives for significant visual defects. One in 13 children who pass have either strabismus and/or significant refractive error (7.8%). The inclusion of a ‘plus blur test’ was not a useful addition to the vision screening protocol.

SUBMITTER: McCullough S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7510406 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn children, SARS-CoV-2 infection is usually asymptomatic or causes a mild illness of short duration. Persistent illness has been reported; however, its prevalence and characteristics are unclear. We aimed to determine illness duration and characteristics in symptomatic UK school-aged children tested for SARS-CoV-2 using data from the COVID Symptom Study, one of the largest UK citizen participatory epidemiological studies to date.MethodsIn this prospective cohort study, data from UK school-aged children (age 5-17 years) were reported by an adult proxy. Participants were voluntary, and used a mobile application (app) launched jointly by Zoe Limited and King's College London. Illness duration and symptom prevalence, duration, and burden were analysed for children testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 for whom illness duration could be determined, and were assessed overall and for younger (age 5-11 years) and older (age 12-17 years) groups. Children with longer than 1 week between symptomatic reports on the app were excluded from analysis. Data from symptomatic children testing negative for SARS-CoV-2, matched 1:1 for age, gender, and week of testing, were also assessed.Findings258 790 children aged 5-17 years were reported by an adult proxy between March 24, 2020, and Feb 22, 2021, of whom 75 529 had valid test results for SARS-CoV-2. 1734 children (588 younger and 1146 older children) had a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result and calculable illness duration within the study timeframe (illness onset between Sept 1, 2020, and Jan 24, 2021). The most common symptoms were headache (1079 [62·2%] of 1734 children), and fatigue (954 [55·0%] of 1734 children). Median illness duration was 6 days (IQR 3-11) versus 3 days (2-7) in children testing negative, and was positively associated with age (Spearman's rank-order rs 0·19, p<0·0001). Median illness duration was longer for older children (7 days, IQR 3-12) than younger children (5 days, 2-9). 77 (4·4%) of 1734 children had illness duration of at least 28 days, more commonly in older than younger children (59 [5·1%] of 1146 older children vs 18 [3·1%] of 588 younger children; p=0·046). The commonest symptoms experienced by these children during the first 4 weeks of illness were fatigue (65 [84·4%] of 77), headache (60 [77·9%] of 77), and anosmia (60 [77·9%] of 77); however, after day 28 the symptom burden was low (median 2 symptoms, IQR 1-4) compared with the first week of illness (median 6 symptoms, 4-8). Only 25 (1·8%) of 1379 children experienced symptoms for at least 56 days. Few children (15 children, 0·9%) in the negatively tested cohort had symptoms for at least 28 days; however, these children experienced greater symptom burden throughout their illness (9 symptoms, IQR 7·7-11·0 vs 8, 6-9) and after day 28 (5 symptoms, IQR 1·5-6·5 vs 2, 1-4) than did children who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2.InterpretationAlthough COVID-19 in children is usually of short duration with low symptom burden, some children with COVID-19 experience prolonged illness duration. Reassuringly, symptom burden in these children did not increase with time, and most recovered by day 56. Some children who tested negative for SARS-CoV-2 also had persistent and burdensome illness. A holistic approach for all children with persistent illness during the pandemic is appropriate.FundingZoe Limited, UK Government Department of Health and Social Care, Wellcome Trust, UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, UK Research and Innovation London Medical Imaging and Artificial Intelligence Centre for Value Based Healthcare, UK National Institute for Health Research, UK Medical Research Council, British Heart Foundation, and Alzheimer's Society.

Project description:PurposeThis article provides recommendations for screening children aged 36 to younger than 72 months for eye and visual system disorders. The recommendations were developed by the National Expert Panel to the National Center for Children's Vision and Eye Health, sponsored by Prevent Blindness, and funded by the Maternal and Child Health Bureau of the Health Resources and Services Administration, United States Department of Health and Human Services. The recommendations describe both best and acceptable practice standards. Targeted vision disorders for screening are primarily amblyopia, strabismus, significant refractive error, and associated risk factors. The recommended screening tests are intended for use by lay screeners, nurses, and other personnel who screen children in educational, community, public health, or primary health care settings. Characteristics of children who should be examined by an optometrist or ophthalmologist rather than undergo vision screening are also described.ResultsThere are two current best practice vision screening methods for children aged 36 to younger than 72 months: (1) monocular visual acuity testing using single HOTV letters or LEA Symbols surrounded by crowding bars at a 5-ft (1.5 m) test distance, with the child responding by either matching or naming, or (2) instrument-based testing using the Retinomax autorefractor or the SureSight Vision Screener with the Vision in Preschoolers Study data software installed (version 2.24 or 2.25 set to minus cylinder form). Using the Plusoptix Photoscreener is acceptable practice, as is adding stereoacuity testing using the PASS (Preschool Assessment of Stereopsis with a Smile) stereotest as a supplemental procedure to visual acuity testing or autorefraction.ConclusionsThe National Expert Panel recommends that children aged 36 to younger than 72 months be screened annually (best practice) or at least once (accepted minimum standard) using one of the best practice approaches. Technological updates will be maintained at http://nationalcenter.preventblindness.org.

Dataset Information

Visual Profile of Children who Passed or Failed the UK School Vision Screening Protocol

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets