September 28, 2022



PlusoptiX and AI-Optics photoscreeners | OPTH

9 min read


Photoscreening is a sound methodology for detection of amblyopia menace elements with a restricted endorsement for youths older than 3 years,1 nonetheless succesful for toddlers and infants even youthful than 1 12 months.2 Photoscreening is designed to ascertain the refractive amblyopia menace elements anisometropia, hyperopia, astigmatism and likewise myopia.3 As well as, photoscreeners could purpose strabismus and deprivational amblyopia menace elements. The Imaginative and prescient Screening Committee of the American Affiliation for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus (AAPOS) has printed confirmatory examination failure ranges for amblyopia menace elements starting in 20033 and updated with three age ranges in 20134 with even further refinement in 2021.5

A given photoscreener producer or imaginative and prescient screening clinic needs to select and set instrument referral requirements so the machine can purpose AAPOS uniform pointers menace situation ranges with relevant sensitivity and specificity. Some devices make use of a single pre-selected instrument referral requirements (IRC) which, when chosen to be delicate for producer obligation often ends in diminished specificity- and over-referral from the perspective of the receiving ophthalmologist. To help deal with the disparate screening program goals, Plusoptix (Nuremberg, Germany) has adopted a user-selectable group of printed instrument referral requirements selections concentrating on the 2013 AAPOS pointers.

The Plusoptix family of photoscreeners (S04, s08, s09, s-12, s-16) has had in depth validation in distinction with eye chart seen acuity,6,7 digital flash cameras,7–9 the MTI photoscreener,9,10 the iScreen,9,11–13 Suresight,9,14–16 in distinction with SPOT,12,13,17–21 2WIN,17,21–26 GoCheck Children,13 blinq,25,26 with Retinomax9,23,24,27,28 and table-top autorefractors,22,29 group screening30,31 and examination.28,32–44 The refractive accuracy has been in distinction.18,22,28,43,45 PlusoptiX is useful on special-needs youngsters.46

Varied totally different IRC have been in distinction.39 Proof-based instrument referral pointers with delicate and explicit choices for the three principal infrared photoscreeners PlusoptiX, SPOT (Welch-Allyn, Schenectady, New York) and the Adaptica 2WIN (Padova, Italy) concentrating on the 2021 revision in AAPOS pointers5 have been printed.21

Value has been a barrier inside the adoption of photoscreening for some pediatric clinics. In Spring 2022, a model new infrared photoscreener with centralized, machine-learning-based interpretation was marketed known as the AI-Optic Imaginative and prescient Screener (Beijing Fantasy Forest Clever Know-how Firm, Ltd, Beijing, China, The AI Optic photoscreener was priced beneath the value of plenty of current photoscreening devices. The Alaska Blind Baby Discovery (ABCD) promptly obtained a model new machine. The perform of this paper is to elucidate the choices of the model new AI Optic machine and to matter it to rigorous head-to-head validation compared with an ordinary PlusoptiX a-12 in a pediatric ophthalmology comply with. Sensible use of the model new machine is described intimately. The AI Optic and the PlusoptiX a-12 are confirmed in Determine 1.

Determine 1 The AI Optic (left) and the PlusoptiX a-12 photoscreeners.

Supplies and Strategies

The possible analysis of a screening check as part of the Alaska Blind Baby Discovery was permitted by the institutional assessment of Windfall Alaska Medical Heart in compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki and the Well being Insurance coverage Portability and Accountability Act. Dad and mom supplied written knowledgeable consent and older youngsters supplied assent. De-identified information are supplied:

Launched in 2022, the extra moderen machine is called the AI Optic Imaginative and prescient Screener (mannequin 0.8.3). AI Optics is a company since 2020 with deal with 145 Lexington Ave APT 10 New York, NY, 10016–8365 United States. From the product description, it’s a multi-radial, Infrared (850 nm) photoscreener measuring at a distance of 100 ± 5 cm by way of pupils with diameter 4.0–9.0 mm, masking an interpupillary distance 50–70 mm over refractive differ spherical vitality −8D to +8D and cylindrical vitality −3.50D to +1.0D. The meant age differ is 3–50 years. The AI Optic supplies no potential to select + or minus cylinder notation, nonetheless the output is particularly minus cylinder, nonetheless typically presents with out the (-). Historic info saved in machine might be individually or batch emailed nonetheless may, at events, not transmit with error message “Did not login!”

AI Optic permits shopper variety of three instrument referral requirements (IRC): the pre-determined default is (1) “Arnold, (sensitivity 92% specificity 90% Indication of supply:, Arnold is finest at maximizing sensitivity and specificity for the newest AAPOS referral standards.12 You may select Arnold for routine verify”. Different IRC are (234) and (332). The exact anisometropia/hyperopia/cylinder/myopia cut-offs for school-age for AI Optic IRC risk (1) are 1.25/2.00/1.50/1.50, for risk (2) are 1.00/3.50/1.25/3.00 and for IRC risk (3) 1.25/1.00/1.25/1.00.

Inclusion requirements had been youngsters current course of pediatric eye examination with favorable parental or licensed guardian consent. Excluded had been youngsters each too youthful or not able to gaze on the photoscreeners. Every affected individual had a watch examination along with best corrected seen acuity (for age), ocular motility along with alternating prism cowl check out, stereopsis, anterior and posterior part exams. Refraction was accomplished with lodging relaxed with cyclopentolate 1% half-hour sooner than refraction in youngsters beneath age 8 and with fogging on the phoropter for these older than 8. From the examination, refractive, strabismic and deprivational amblyopia menace elements meeting AAPOS requirements had been acknowledged.

SAMPLE SIZE CALCULATION: Prior experience with infrared photoscreener refraction comparability demonstrated the ABCD ellipsoid suggest about 2.0 with regular deviation 2.0.21 Subsequently, to detect a distinction of 0.5, with beta 0.8 and alpha 0.05, a sample measurement of 126 could possibly be wished. If 2/3 of the victims had been predicted older than 4 years, then about 180 victims have to be recruited anticipating some to be inconclusive or out-of-range.

The potential of each machine to show for given menace situation targets for amblyopia are in distinction using receiver working attribute curves47 from which an house beneath the curve (AUC) was calculated.

From a diffusion of explicit individual subcomponent refractive and strabismic amblyopia instrument referral requirements that correlated between each machine and the confirmatory eye examination, receiver working attribute curves had been generated evaluating the devices concentrating on 2013 and 2021 AAPOS Uniform guideline with failure requirements that acknowledge anisometropia, meridional hyperopia, astigmatism, myopia and strabismus. To a set of IRC known as “common”, “delicate” and “particular” and additional stage for “additional particular” was added to extend seen differ on the ROC curves (Desk 1).

Desk 1 Instrument Referral Standards (IRC) for PlusoptiX a-12 and AI Optic Photoscreeners Focusing on 2013 and 2021 AAPOS Uniform Guideline Refractive Amblyopia Threat Elements (ARF). Lower Off Ranges Embody Anisometropia (A), Meridional Hyperopia (H), Myopia (M) and Astigmatism (C; cylinder)

The flexibility of every machine to estimate age-based sphero-cylinder refractive error is in contrast utilizing the ABCD ellipsoid methodology.24 The ABCD ellipsoid is derived as an oval-solid space on a 3 dimensional plot with J0 (x-axis), J45 (y-axis) and M spherical equal (z-axis) the displacement between two sphero-cylinder refractions leading to a single measure related to the diploma of blur produced by the refractive distinction.48


PATIENTS: A whole of 200 youngsters aged 0.4 to 18 (suggest 7.6 ±4.7 years) current course of new or adjust to up pediatric ophthalmology examinations had been concomitantly screened with the AI Optic and the PlusoptiX a12 devices (Desk 2). 113 had age-based 2021 AAPOS refractive and/or strabismic amblyopia menace elements. The ethnic/racial/gender mix was 14 Asian, 18 Black, 24 Hispanic, 16 Alaska Native, 15 Pacific Islander and 113 White; 106 had been male. Seventy-one had some sort of neuro-developmental delay along with 16 with autism, 11 premature, 7 with consideration deficit (ADHD) and 6 with trisomy 21 and of whom cooperation was judged as poor in 9 and “truthful” in 12. Sixteen had been referred by group pediatric photoscreening and 15 had prior strabismus surgical process.

See also  Buyer and worker expertise errors to keep away from and the way AI might help

Desk 2 Traits of Sufferers. Counts and Measured Variables are Quantified by Imply, Commonplace Deviation (S.D), Median, Minimal (min) and Most (max). There have been 71 with Developmental Delay resembling Autism, Trisomy 21, Marked Prematurity and Consideration Deficit. Precise Refraction is In comparison with Estimates by the PlusoptiX a-12 and AI Optic Photoscreeners That includes Sphere Proper and left (R and L) and Cylinder (Cyl)

PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE WITH THE DEVICES: The next are observations relating to benefits and drawbacks of every machine when screening cooperative and developmentally delayed youngsters. The AI Optic in 2022 US {dollars} prices lower than $1000 whereas the opposite conventional infrared, multi-radial photoscreeners value $6-8000.

The AI Optic requires WiFi for distant, computerized intelligence interpretation (takes 10–70 seconds) and fees in about 2 hours with USB-C affording 2 hours of cordless use for over 10–20 screenings. The AI Optic comes with a 13-page transient Product Instruction and a web based coaching video which suggest fixing machine to a tripod as an alternative of hand holding. Presumably the tripod can be for grownup and older-children refractions whereas precise pediatric photoscreening advantages from fast, inventive digital camera focus and re-alignment. Subsequently, for our validation in youngsters, we used the machine hand-held.

The show on this early launch of AI Optics nonetheless has some English typos resembling: “proceesing”, “enter your e mail to see you end result” The instrument referral standards we employed on the AI Optic matched one accessible on the PlusoptiX and was known as “Arnold.”12

The PlusoptiX has in depth medical experience with product and software program program updates.49 The replaceable AA batteries or rechargeable risk are helpful. The patron interface deciding on affected individual age solely affords quick screening and the inside laptop interpretation is usually very fast (2–5 seconds image acquisition and three seconds interpretation). Focus is indicated by a inexperienced ring throughout the pupils. For teenagers with sophisticated refractions, blocked or non-round pupils, the PlusoptiX received’t “guess” a quick interpretation nonetheless could take 30 seconds or additional attempting to amass reliable infrared pupil crescent information. If PlusoptiX interprets refractions out of differ, instead of a presenting a sphero-cylinder refraction estimate, it’ll instead state “HYP” for additional hyperopia or hyperopic astigmatism and “MYO” for additional myopic refraction estimation. For age-dependent purpose conditions, Plusoptix makes use of a simple contact show number of years of age sooner than enabling image acquisition.

The AI Optic has a brief shopper’s handbook and a 13-minute on-line video so positive options of screening with this machine had been intuitive, nonetheless others required discovery with use. For event, affected individual demographics title, gender and birthdate must be entered first, then image acquisition triggered by pressing a whirly-circle emblem on the contact show; in a dim room the affected individual’s face and pupils weren’t seen until a second emblem- not notably talked about on the patron handbook, was activated initially. Focus relies on image readability on the show after which “Picture proceesing” displays as a result of the number of seconds for WiFi and net transmission to the central learning coronary heart adopted by return of a “refer” or “move” color-coded interpretation with sphero-cylinder estimate primarily in minus cylinder sort (nonetheless differ of cylinder for the machine listed as “from −3 to 1 diopter). Particulars about AI Optic proprietary central learning course of, akin to location, info storage and/or laptop methods aren’t given inside the accompanying printed product instructions or on the internet web site. Virtually always the left eye spherical equal is 0.75 to 1.0 diopters additional hyperopic than the becoming eye. Saved screening outcomes might be reviewed, chosen individually or as a bunch and emailed nonetheless the machine was able to email correspondence the preliminary 50 screenings, nonetheless gave an error when attempting to email correspondence as a result of the group purchased greater. The potential to purpose the digicam and keep it common on a gradual, or a shifting affected individual labored correctly hand-held by an expert screener and the tripod was not wished.

The PlusoptiX A-12 (mannequin, Nuremberg, Germany) initially designed in 2012 is an industry-standard, multi-radial infrared photorefractive screener with in depth validation. Plusoptix can work independently from net with digital interpretation real-time by way of the machine; Plusoptix does allow WiFi connectivity to digital medical info, nonetheless. An S12 is for screening whereas the A-12 provides full sphero-cylinder refraction with comparable crimson reflex analysis from the prior S04, S08 and S0946 fashions. These PlusoptiX devices use regular or rechargeable AA batteries. We employed IRC rating amount 4 out of 5 selections for specificity12 (anisometropia 1.25, hyperopia 2.00, cylinder 1.50 and myopia 1.50) when this machine was employed hand-held in a dim examination room. Quite a lot of instrument referral requirements beforehand reported for PlusoptiX21 are employed and new widespread, delicate and explicit and extra-specific choices are generated from adjusted ARF aspect contributions to preliminary AUC, considerably for the not too way back launched AI Optics machine are given in Desk 1.

VALIDATION: The PlusoptiX was unable to offer an interpretation in 25 circumstances usually as a consequence of strabismus and/or poor cooperation, in 9 additional hyperopia was well-known in every eyes, in 3 additional myopia was well-known and in 19 an additional of hyperopia was well-known in a single eye with sphero-cylinder estimate inside the contralateral eye. For the AI Optic, 16 had been unreadable yielding no refractive outcomes of which two had been victims with strabismus and two others had extreme hyperopia (5 diopters), nonetheless sphero-cylinder estimates had been obtained for the remaining 184 whether or not or not strabismic or not. Of the 25 inconclusive interpretations with Plusoptix, 22 (88%) had 2021 AAPOS ARF whereas of the 16 inconclusive AI Optic, 10 (63%) had 2021 AAPOS ARF.

Receiver working attribute (ROC) curves present the predictive value concentrating on amblyopia menace elements evaluating the two devices. AAPOS Uniform Guideline 2013 older age group (>47 months; Determine 2) and the extra moderen 2021 pointers for preschool (<4 years) and likewise for youths ≥ 4 years are launched (Determine 3). The exact “refer” or “move” outcomes from the PlusoptiX using machine chosen IRC risk 4 of 5, and the Arnold default IRC for AI Optics are highlighted on each ROC curve with a inexperienced arrow (Figures 2 and three). Estimates of the Space Underneath the Curve for ROC curves evaluating devices on this high-prevalence cohort for varsity age 2013 and 2021 pointers and for preschool 2021 are given in Desk 3. For teenagers over 4 years of age concentrating on 2021 refractive plus strabismic amblyopia menace elements, the AI Optics had AUC of 0.58 compared with 0.74 for PlusoptiX a-12. The corresponding instrument outcomes between AI Optics and the PlusoptiX a-12 photoscreener influenced by developmental delay is confirmed in Desk 4. For college age 2021 refractive plus strabismus, the Plusoptix “common” IRC had sensitivity/specificity of 92%/82% for victims with developmental delay and 73%/81% for victims with common enchancment. For the similar victims, concentrating on strabismus plus refractive 2021, AI Optic had sensitivity/specificity of 69%/28% for victims with developmental delay and 74%/48% for victims with common neuro-development.

Desk 3 Space Underneath the Curve (AUC) for Receiver Working Attribute (ROC) Curves Validating the PlusoptiX a-12 and the AI Optic Photoscreeners Focusing on American Affiliation of Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus (AAPOS) Refractive Alone and Refractive Plus Strabismic Amblyopia Threat Elements (ARF). The entire Variety of Kids for Every Age Vary (n) and The Prevalence of These Above the Examination Failure Ranges are Given. Validation Sensitivity (sens) and Specificity (spec) from the ABCD Standards (Arnold) for Faculty age Focusing on Refractive ± Strabismic Amblyopia Threat Elements are Given. Inconclusive Gadget Outcomes (i) are Reported as if They Have been a “Refer (i = r), and likewise as if They Are Not Included within the Calculations (Exclude i)

See also  The Visuals in This Sci-Fi Capturing Recreation Are Made by AI: Right here’s The way to Play

Desk 4 Corresponding Outcomes Between AI Optic and PlusoptiX a-12 Photoscreening Accounting for the Quantity (in Parentheses) with Developmental Delays

Determine 2 The receiver working attribute (ROC) curves evaluating AI Optic to the Plusoptix a-12 in youngsters over 4 years of age concentrating on the 2013 AAPOS amblyopia danger elements for strabismus and refractive error with inconclusive outcomes counted as a “refer” and Instrument referral standards “Arnold, ABCD” chosen indicated by the inexperienced arrows.

Determine 3 Receiver working attribute (ROC) curves concentrating on AAPOS 2021 refractive and strabismic amblyopia danger elements evaluating college age (left column) with preschool (proper column). Inconclusive outcomes (i) are both counted as a “refer” (I = refer) or excluded from calculations of sensitivity and specificity. Instrument referral standards “Arnold, ABCD” chosen indicated by the inexperienced arrows.

REFRACTIVE COMPARISON: The accuracy of every machine’s photoscreen estimation of refraction was in comparison with precise refraction utilizing the ABCD ellipsoid methodology.24 Of the 200 victims, 134 had sphero-cylinder estimates in every AI Optics and PlusoptiX for comparability. ABCD ellipsoid suggest (±S.D) for PlusoptiX correct eye 2.20±1.5 and left eye 2.34±1.6 differed from AI Optics correct eye (3.15±2.3) and left eye (3.63±2.6) using Pupil’s t-test with correct eye (t(266) = 4.0 and left eye t(266) = 4.9 every being essential (p<0.001). Nevertheless, the Shapiro–Wilk check out for normal distribution for ABCD ellipse correct eye (z=6.0) and ellipse left eye (z=6.8) PlusoptiX and for IA Optics correct eye (z=6.3) and left eye (z=4.9) all weren’t often distributed (p<0.001). Subsequently, the ABCD ellipsoid median with inter-quartiles (Q1,Q3) for PlusoptiX correct eye 1.88 (1.12,2.86) and left eye 2.10 (1.26,3.04) differed from AI Optics correct eye 2.53 (1.54,4.01) and left eye 3.05 (1.83,5.00) demonstrated by Mann–Whitney z=3.7 correct eye and z=4.2 left eye (Determine 4; p<0.001 each).

Determine 4 The ABCD ellipsoid compares spherical cylindrical refractions from Plusoptix and AI Optic with precise (cycloplegic) refraction. Prime metric field plots with interquartile ranges (yellow and purple) highlights values of 1 correspond to 1 line visible acuity blur (grade A) whereas worth of two implies 3 logMAR strains blur (grade B) and worth of three 6 logMAR strains blur (grade C). Backside metric reveals proportion with every grade (colours purple, Orange and inexperienced) blur and people which can be a poorer spectacle match than grade C (teal shade) (greater than 6 strains visible acuity blur).

The ABCD ellipsoid for PlusoptiX didn’t correlate with AI Optics for proper eye (Pearson Product-Second Correlation r(132) = 0.107, p=0.22) or for left eye (Pearson Correlation r(132) = 0.07, p=0.42).


The 2022 launched, less-expensive AI Optic was in comparison with the same formed and configured 2012 launched PlusoptiX a-12 photoscreener on 200 youngsters from a pediatric eye observe. Because the 2021 tips have solely lately been printed, every machine nonetheless utilized Instrument Referral Standards that focus on 2013 AAPOS tips.4 Roughly 1/3 of the youthful youngsters decrease than 4 years outdated and about 2/3 of the older youngsters had amblyopia menace elements outlined by the 2021 AAPOS pointers.5 For the 2013 and 2021 Tips, the additionally used PlusoptiX a-12 outperformed the newer AI Optic in the case of amblyopia menace situation screening and refractive estimation.

An influence of this analysis is a enough number of ethnically-diverse, older youngsters with extreme prevalence of amblyopia menace elements. On the alternative hand, subgroup analysis of the youthful group decrease than 4 years of age was restricted by sample measurement of merely 52. Developmentally delayed youngsters weren’t excluded. Uniform guideline newest purpose amblyopia menace elements had been analyzed together with the earlier 2013 examination failure ranges for which each machine has software program program to give attention to. Refractive comparability utilized validated, single metric ABCD ellipsoid values and grades with enough sample measurement.

PlusoptiX had additional inconclusive outcomes than AI Optic. A refractive estimate was delivered in 175 of the PlusoptiX screenings and 184 of the AI Optic screenings on this extreme menace cohort with 32 victims with a tropia of upper than 8 prism diopters. Attributable to variations in pupillary crimson reflex crescent all through ocular misalignment, the Plusoptix with real-time, in-device interpretation is programmed to not give a refractive estimate when substantial strabismus is suspected. On the alternative hand, AI Optic with remotely AI-interpreted images produced refractive estimates typically inside the presence of fastened strabismus. Eighteen inconclusive Plusoptix interpretations had been considered a refer by AI Optic whereas 5 victims had been inconclusive on every devices (Desk 4).

A weak spot of the analysis is that it isn’t carried out in group cohort with typical menace situation prevalence then blended with uniform examination definition of refractive error, strabismus, media opacity and age-appropriate seen acuity from which amblyopia itself might be recognized. As a substitute of extraordinarily expert screener as on this analysis, the experience stage of the screener could have been additional typical akin to studying a lay screener or pediatric technician or nurse. An intensive cost-benefit analysis was not accomplished to match the devices; instead value differ and validation info are launched.

Plusoptix had been the one photoscreener to provide a shopper a number of 5 instrument referral requirements39 nonetheless now AI Optics has been designed to provide three of these moreover.

With further medical experience and validation, the accuracy of this new AI Optics with artificial intelligent interpretation may have the potential to get even increased.


A budget AI Optic resembles the Plusoptix in sort and configuration along with user-selected instrument referral pointers, nonetheless it doesn’t however get hold of Plusoptix’s extreme stage of effectivity concentrating on uniform amblyopia menace situation pointers or estimates of sphero-cylinder refractive error. With further validation and AI, the effectivity of the model new AI Optic is more likely to be elevated.


AAPOS, American Affiliation for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus; ABCD, Alaska Blind Baby Discovery; AI, artificial intelligence, AUC, house beneath the curve; D, diopter; GoCheck Children, mannequin of photoscreener based on smartphone; I.R.C., instrument referral requirements; PD, prism diopter; ROC, receiver working attribute; s04, s08, s09, s12, s16 are successive model numbers of Plusoptix photoscreener developed in than 12 months since 2000 A.D.; SPOT, mannequin of photoscreener; USB, widespread serial bus; WiFi, wi-fi fidelity neighborhood protocol; 2WIN, mannequin of photoscreener.

Information Sharing Assertion

De-identified info


There isn’t any funding to report.


Dr. Arnold coordinates the Alaska Blind Baby Discovery which has obtained discounted imaginative and prescient show know-how from plenty of distributors. He’s board member of PDI Test which makes a imaginative and prescient screening recreation for autostereoscopic devices and likewise of Glacier Medical software program program which markets the cloud-based ROP screening software program program ROP Test. Additionally he’s Protocol developer and Investigator for PEDIG. As well as, Dr Arnold experiences unpaid advisory board member for GoCheck Children, iScreen, Adaptica and PlusoptiX. The author experiences no totally different conflicts of curiosity on this work.


1. Grossman DC, Curry SJ, Owens DK, et al. Imaginative and prescient screening in youngsters aged 6 months to 5 years: US preventive suppliers job stress recommendation assertion. JAMA. 2017;318(9):836–844. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.11260

2. Longmuir SQ, Boese EA, Pfeifer W, Zimmerman B, Brief L, Scott WE. Sensible group photoscreening in very youthful youngsters. Pediatrics. 2013;131(3):e764–e769. doi:10.1542/peds.2012-1638

See also  Why Airbus is betting on AI to repair pilot scarcity, flight security

3. Donahue S, Arnold R, Ruben JB. Preschool imaginative and prescient screening: what should we be detecting and the best way should we report it? Uniform pointers for reporting outcomes from analysis of preschool imaginative and prescient screening. J AAPOS. 2003;7(5):314–316. doi:10.1016/S1091-8531(03)00182-4

4. Donahue SP, Arthur B, Neely DE, Arnold RW, Silbert D, Ruben JB. Tips for automated preschool imaginative and prescient screening: a 10-year, evidence-based exchange. J AAPOS. 2013;17(1):4–8. doi:10.1016/j.jaapos.2012.09.012

5. Arnold RW, Donahue SP, Silbert DI, et al. Uniform pointers for pediatric imaginative and prescient show validation 2021. J AAPOS. 2022;26(1):p1.e-.e6. doi:10.1016/j.jaapos.2021.09.009

6. Vaughan J, Dale T, Herrera D. Comparability of photoscreening to chart methodology for imaginative and prescient screening. J Sch Nurs. 2020;38(3):306–310. doi:10.1177/1059840520940370

7. Leman RE, Clausen MM, Bates J, Stark L, Arnold KK, Arnold RW. A comparability of patched HOTV seen acuity and photoscreening. J Sch Nurs. 2006;22(4):237–243. doi:10.1177/10598405050220040901

8. Clausen MM, Arnold RW. Pediatric eye/imaginative and prescient screening. Referral requirements for the pediavision plusoptix s 04 photoscreener compared with seen acuity and digital photoscreening. Kindergarten laptop photoscreening. Binocul Vis Strabismus Q. 2007;22(2):83–89.

9. Arnold RW, Davis B, Arnold LE, Rowe KS, Davis JM. Calibration and validation of 9 purpose imaginative and prescient screeners with contact-lens induced anisometropia. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus. 2013;50(3):184–190. doi:10.3928/01913913-20130402-02

10. Matta NS, Arnold RW, Singman EL, Silbert DI. Comparability between the plusoptiX and MTI Photoscreeners. Arch Ophthalmol. 2009;127(12):1591–1595. doi:10.1001/archophthalmol.2009.294

11. Wang J, Suh D. Comparability between the plusoptix and iScreen photoscreeners in detecting amblyopic menace elements in youngsters (meeting abstract). J AAPOS. 2012;16(1):105. doi:10.1016/j.jaapos.2011.12.113

12. Arnold RW, Arnold AW, Armitage MD, Shen JM, Hepler TE, Woodard TL. Pediatric photoscreeners in extreme menace victims 2012: a comparability analysis of Plusoptix, iScreen and SPOT. Binoc Vis and Strabismus Quart. 2013;28(1):20–28.

13. D’Souza H, Kun A, Martinson S, Bejarano L, McCole S. The constructive predictive value of photoscreening devices for amblyogenic conditions. J AAPOS. 2021;25(6):P342.E1–342.E4. doi:10.1016/j.jaapos.2021.06.008

14. Silbert D, Matta N, Tian J, Singman E. Evaluating the SureSight autorefractor and the plusoptiX photoscreener for pediatric imaginative and prescient screening. Strabismus. 2014;22(2):64–67. doi:10.3109/09273972.2014.904896

15. Silbert DI, Matta NS, Ely AL. Comparability of SureSight autorefractor and plusoptiX A09 photoscreener for imaginative and prescient screening in rural Honduras. J AAPOS. 2014;18(1):42–44. doi:10.1016/j.jaapos.2013.09.006

16. Lang D, Leman R, Arnold AW, Arnold RW. Validated moveable pediatric imaginative and prescient screening inside the Alaska Bush. A VIPS-like analysis inside the Koyukon. Alaska Med. 2007;49(1):2–15.

17. Kirk S, Armitage MD, Dunn S, Arnold RW. Calibration and validation of the 2WIN photoscreener compared with the PlusoptiX S12 and the SPOT. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus. 2014;51(5):1–4. doi:10.3928/01913913-20140701-01

18. Crescioni M, Miller JM, Harvey EM. Accuracy of the spot and plusoptix photoscreeners for detection of astigmatism. J AAPOS. 2015;19(5):435–440. doi:10.1016/j.jaapos.2015.07.284

19. Trivedi RH, Wilson ME, Peterseim MM, Papa C, Husain M. Potential evaluation of photoscreeners inside the pseudophakic eyes of children. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus. 2016;53(3):146–149. doi:10.3928/01913913-20160405-08

20. Zhang X, Wang J, Li Y, Jiang B. Diagnostic check out accuracy of Spot and Plusoptix photoscreeners in detecting amblyogenic menace elements in youngsters: a systemic consider and meta-analysis. Ophthalmic Physiol Choose. 2019;39(4):260–271. doi:10.1111/opo.12628

21. Arnold RW, Silbert DI, Modjesky H. Instrument referral requirements for Plusoptix, SPOT and 2WIN concentrating on 2021 AAPOS pointers. Clin Ophthalmol. 2022;16:489–505. doi:10.2147/OPTH.S342666

22. Yalcin E, Sultan P, Yilmaz S, Pallikaris IG. A comparability of refraction defects in childhood measured using Plusoptix S09, 2WIN photorefractometer, benchtop autorefractometer, and cycloplegic retinoscopy. Semin Ophthalmol. 2017;32(4):422–427. doi:10.3109/08820538.2015.1118135

23. Racano E, Alessi S, Pertile R. Comparability of 2Win and plusoptiX A12R refractometers with Retinomax handheld autorefractor keratometer. J AAPOS. 2019;23(5):276e1–276 e5. doi:10.1016/j.jaapos.2019.05.017

24. Arnold R, Martin SJ, Beveridge JR, et al. Ellipsoid spectacle comparability of PlusoptiX, retinomax and 2WIN autorefractors. Clin Ophthalmol. 2021;15:3637–3648. doi:10.2147/OPTH.S326680

25. Keffalos MA, Martin SJ, Arnold RW. Drive-by photoscreening: plusoptiX, 2WIN and blinq amblyopia detection in the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic. Clin Ophthalmol. 2021;15:775–782. doi:10.2147/OPTH.S300871

26. Arnold R, Angi M. Multifaceted amblyopia screening with blinq, 2WIN and PDI Test. Clin Ophthalmol. 2022;16:411–421. doi:10.2147/OPTH.S349638

27. Kinori M, Molina I, Hernandez EO, et al. The PlusoptiX photoscreener and the retinomax autorefractor as community-based screening devices for preschool youngsters. Curr Eye Res. 2018;43:1–5.

28. Payerols A, Eliaou C, Trezeguet V, Villain M, Daien V. Accuracy of PlusOptix A09 distance refraction in pediatric myopia and hyperopia. BMC Ophthalmol. 2016;16:72. doi:10.1186/s12886-016-0247-8

29. Received JY, Shin HY, Kim SY, Lee YC. A comparability of the Plusoptix S09 with an autorefractometer of noncycloplegics and cycloplegics in youngsters. Medication. 2016;95(35):e4596. doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000004596

30. Kiatos E, Armstrong JJ, Makar I. Successes and shortfalls of group Plusoptix photoscreening: outcomes from the iSee analysis in Southwestern Ontario. Can J Ophthalmol. 2021;56(1):49–56. doi:10.1016/j.jcjo.2020.07.022

31. Al-Haddad C, El Moussawi Z, Hoyeck S, et al. Amblyopia menace elements amongst pediatric victims in a hospital-based setting using photoscreening. PLoS One. 2021;16(7):e0254831. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0254831

32. Arthur BW, Riyaz R, Rodriguez S, Wong J. Discipline testing of the plusoptiX S04 photoscreener. J AAPOS. 2009;13(1):51–57. doi:10.1016/j.jaapos.2008.08.016

33. Matta NS, Singman EL, McCarus C, Matta E, Silbert DI. Screening for amblyogenic menace elements using the PlusoptiX S04 photoscreener on the indigent inhabitants of Honduras. Ophthalmology. 2010;117(9):1848–1850. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2010.01.038

34. Matta NS, Singman EL, Silbert DI. Efficiency of the plusoptiX S04 photoscreener for the detection of amblyopia menace elements in youngsters aged 3 to 5. J AAPOS. 2010;14(2):147–149. doi:10.1016/j.jaapos.2010.01.006

35. Bloomberg J, Suh D. Efficiency of the plusoptix A08 photoscreener for the detection of amblyopia menace elements in youngsters 0–5 in central Iowa (Assembly abstract). J AAPOS. 2012;16(1):105. doi:10.1016/j.jaapos.2011.12.044

36. Saber Moghadam A, Alizadeh R, Zarei-Ghanavati M. Plusoptix S08 sensitivity in detecting strabismus as amblyogenic menace situation. Strabismus. 2013;21(4):230–234. doi:10.3109/09273972.2013.851259

37. Silbert DI, Matta NS, Andersen Okay. Plusoptix photoscreening may substitute cycloplegic examination in select pediatric ophthalmology victims. J AAPOS. 2013;17(2):163–165. doi:10.1016/j.jaapos.2012.11.008

38. Silbert J, Matta N, Tian J, Singman E, Silbert DI. Pupil measurement and anisocoria in youngsters measured by the plusoptiX photoscreener. J AAPOS. 2013;17(6):609–611. doi:10.1016/j.jaapos.2013.09.003

39. Singman E, Matta N, Tian J, Silbert D. A comparability of referral requirements utilized by the plusoptiX photoscreener. Strabismus. 2013;21(3):190–194. doi:10.3109/09273972.2013.811606

40. Singman E, Matta N, Tian J, Silbert D. The accuracy of the plusoptiX for measuring pupillary distance. Strabismus. 2014;22(1):21–25. doi:10.3109/09273972.2013.877941

41. Lowry EA, Wang W, Nyong’o O. Goal imaginative and prescient screening in 3-year-old youngsters at a multispecialty comply with. J AAPOS. 2015;19(1):16–20. doi:10.1016/j.jaapos.2014.09.008

42. Yan XR, Jiao WZ, Li ZW, Xu WW, Li FJ, Wang LH. Efficiency of the Plusoptix A09 photoscreener in detecting amblyopia menace elements in Chinese language youngsters attending a watch clinic. PLoS One. 2015;10(6):e0126052. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0126052

43. Fogel-Levin M, Doron R, Wygnanski-Jaffe T, Ancri O, Ben Zion I. A comparability of plusoptiX A12 measurements with cycloplegic refraction. J AAPOS. 2016;20(4):310–314. doi:10.1016/j.jaapos.2016.04.006

44. Huang D, Chen X, Zhang X, et al. Pediatric imaginative and prescient screening using the plusoptiX A12C photoscreener in Chinese language preschool youngsters aged 3 to 4 years. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):2041. doi:10.1038/s41598-017-02246-6

45. Li R, Huang D, Zhu H, et al. 双目屈光筛查仪在4~5岁学龄前儿童视力筛查中的应用研究. [The performance of visual photoscreening for Chinese preschool children aged 4 to 5 years]. Zhonghua Yan Ke Za Zhi. 2020;56(3):189–196. Chinese language. doi:10.3760/cma.j.issn.0412-4081.2020.03.006

46. Singman E, Matta N, Fairward A, Silbert D. Analysis of plusoptiX photoscreening all through examinations of children with autism. Strabismus. 2013;21(2):103–105. doi:10.3109/09273972.2013.786736

47. Miller JM. Designing a rational screening program. Am Orthopt J. 2006;56(1):30–34. doi:10.3368/aoj.56.1.30

48. Arnold RW, Beveridge JS, Martin SJ, Beveridge NR, Metzger EJ, Smith KA. Grading sphero-cylinder spectacle similarity. Clin Optom. 2021;13:23–32. doi:10.2147/OPTO.S289770

49. Kaur Okay, Kannusamy V, Mouttapa F, Gurnani B, Venkatesh R, Khadia A. To evaluate the accuracy of Plusoptix S12-C photoscreener in detecting amblyogenic menace elements in youngsters aged 6 months to 6 years in distant areas of South India. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2020;68(10):2186–2189. doi:10.4103/ijo.IJO_2046_19

Copyright © All rights reserved. | Newsphere by AF themes.