ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: The main aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of a platform designed for pediatricians to screen amblyopia using a smartphone. METHODS: The medical records of consecutive children who received visual screening using a smartphone platform were retrospectively reviewed. The smartphone was used with a flash concentrator case and a software for capturing images of both eyes simultaneously by a photorefraction mechanism. The platform performance was compared to the comprehensive ophthalmological examination, which is considered the gold standard for detecting amblyopia. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of the software in detecting amblyopia risk factors were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 157 children were included, with a mean age of 6.0±.5 years (range 5-7). In 94% of the cases, the software was able to analyze the images and release a result, determining whether or not the child presented with amblyopia risk factors. Compared to the ophthalmological examination, the smartphone platform sensitivity in detecting amblyopia risk factors was 84%, the specificity was 74%, the positive predictive value was 86%, and the negative predictive value was 70%. CONCLUSIONS: The sensitivity and specificity of the smartphone photoscreening platform to detect amblyopia risk factors were within the range of traditional instrument-based vision screening technology. A smartphone photorefraction platform appears to be a promising cost-effective alternative to assist pediatricians and minimize obstacles to vision screening and amblyopia detection. Future studies are needed to gather additional comparative data.
Subject(s)
Amblyopia , Vision Screening , Amblyopia/diagnosis , Child , Child, Preschool , Humans , Predictive Value of Tests , Reproducibility of Results , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors , Smartphone , Vision Screening/methodsABSTRACT
ABSTRACT Objective: The main aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of a platform designed for pediatricians to screen amblyopia using a smartphone. Methods: The medical records of consecutive children who received visual screening using a smartphone platform were retrospectively reviewed. The smartphone was used with a flash concentrator case and a software for capturing images of both eyes simultaneously by a photorefraction mechanism. The platform performance was compared to the comprehensive ophthalmological examination, which is considered the gold standard for detecting amblyopia. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of the software in detecting amblyopia risk factors were calculated. Results: A total of 157 children were included, with a mean age of 6.0±.5 years (range 5-7). In 94% of the cases, the software was able to analyze the images and release a result, determining whether or not the child presented with amblyopia risk factors. Compared to the ophthalmological examination, the smartphone platform sensitivity in detecting amblyopia risk factors was 84%, the specificity was 74%, the positive predictive value was 86%, and the negative predictive value was 70%. Conclusions: The sensitivity and specificity of the smartphone photoscreening platform to detect amblyopia risk factors were within the range of traditional instrument-based vision screening technology. A smartphone photorefraction platform appears to be a promising cost-effective alternative to assist pediatricians and minimize obstacles to vision screening and amblyopia detection. Future studies are needed to gather additional comparative data.
RESUMO Objetivo: Avaliar a performance de uma plataforma desenvolvida para pediatras para triagem de ambliopia utilizando um smartphone. Métodos: Os prontuários consecutivos de crianças submetidas a triagem visual usando uma plataforma no smartphone foram analisados retrospectivamente. Uma capa concentradora de flash foi utilizada no smartphone com um software para capturar imagens simultâneas dos dois olhos por um mecanismo de fotorrefração. A performance da plataforma foi comparada ao exame oftalmológico completo, considerado o padrão ouro para detecção de ambliopia. Foram calculados sensibilidade, especificidade, valor preditivo positivo e valor preditivo negativo do software em detectar fatores de risco para ambliopia. Resultados: Foram incluídas 157 crianças com idade média de 6.0±0.5 anos (variação de 5 a 7 anos). Em 94% dos casos, o software foi capaz de analisar as imagens e fornecer um resultado, determinando se a criança apresentava ou não fatores de risco para ambliopia. Comparados ao exame oftalmológico, a sensibilidade da plataforma no smartphone em detectar fatores de risco para ambliopia foi de 84%, a especificidade foi de 74%, o valor preditivo positivo foi de 86% e o valor preditivo negativo foi de 70%. Conclusões: A plataforma de triagem por fotorrefração usando o smartphone apresentou sensibilidade e especificidade para detectar fatores de risco para ambliopia semelhantes às encontradas em instrumentos tradicionais de triagem por fotorrefração. Uma plataforma no smartphone é uma alternativa custo-efetiva promissora para auxiliar pediatras a minimizar os obstáculos para triagem visual e detecção da ambliopia. Estudos futuros são necessários a fim de reunir dados comparativos adicionais.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Endolaser probes have been designed and sold for single-use only. However, in Brazil, they are not included in the list of single-use medical products that are prohibited from being reprocessed and could potentially be reused if safety requirements are accomplished. Therefore, this study aimed to determine and compare the quality, safety and costs of reprocessed versus original single-use endolaser probes of a specific brand and model. METHODS: The study, conducted at a university hospital in Sao Paulo, Brazil, was divided in two phases. The first one tested the feasibility, sterility and physical integrity of ten reprocessed laser probes. In the second phase, all vitrectomy procedures using endolaser probes (reprocessed and original ones) from August 2017 to October 2019 were evaluated. The operated cases were followed for any signs of infection and number of defective probes for each group were counted. The cost of acquiring a new probe and for all reprocessing stages were evaluated and quantified in US dollars($). RESULTS: Microbiologic, residual ethilen oxide and microscopic evaluation of integrity of reprocessed laser probes were all within acceptable range. The second phase of this study included 590 endolaser probes, of which 375 were original and 215 were reprocessed. Functionality rates differed significantly between groups. Among the original probes, 373 (99.47%) were functioning and 2 (0.53%) were non-functioning. Among the reprocessed ones, 201 (93.5%) were functioning and 14 (6.5%) were non-functioning (p < .001). The average cost of one reprocessing was $3.00, and the average cost of an original probe was $150.00. Considering the loss rates, potential savings were $147.60 for each once-reprocessed probe. The frequency of infectious endophthalmitis was null in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed that a single cycle endolaser probe reprocessing was safe and efficient, not associated with increase in endophthalmitis rate and proved to be significantly cost-effective, even considering a greater malfunction rate when compared to the original devices.
