Sarcoidosis presenting as bilateral lacrimal gland swelling: a pediatric case report.

BACKGROUND: To describe a case of pediatric sarcoidosis which initially presented as papillary conjunctivitis before manifesting as bilateral lacrimal gland swelling without other known systemic involvement. CASE PRESENTATION: A 10-year-old female presented to the pediatric ophthalmology clinic with complaints of bilateral eyelid swelling, tearing and itching for approximately 1 month. Her history and exam were most consistent with allergic conjunctivitis, for which she was started on a standard topical regimen. Despite initial improvement, she re-presented with significantly worsened eyelid swelling and minimal allergic symptoms. Enlargement of the lacrimal glands were palpable at this time. Lacrimal gland biopsy was obtained which demonstrated noncaseating granulomas. Systemic workup did not reveal evidence of disease involvement elsewhere. CONCLUSIONS: Sarcoidosis in the pediatric population may present in a myriad of ways and is well-known to mimic other disease entities. We present a case of pediatric sarcoidosis which presented initially as papillary conjunctivitis before manifesting as bilateral lacrimal gland swelling without systemic involvement.

Effectiveness of the iPhone GoCheck Kids smartphone vision screener in detecting amblyopia risk factors.

BACKGROUND: The recently released GoCheck Kids iPhone photoscreening app is designed to detect amblyopia risk factors (ARFs) in young children and includes remote review of images captured by smartphone. We aimed to evaluate the system's accuracy in detecting AAPOS guidelines ARFs. METHODS: Patients 6 months through 6 years of age at Medical University of South Carolina were recruited for this prospective study. Presence of age-specific ARF was determined based on a complete ophthalmic examination and compared with the GoCheck Kids recommendations. RESULTS: A total of 244 children were included (average age, 42 months; 51% male). Sensitivity of the GoCheck Kids iPhone with remote review to detect ARFs was 90.5%; specificity, 68.1%; positive predictive value, 56.8%; negative predictive value, 94.0%. Two of the 7 false negative results had hyperopia of >4 D, 4 had astigmatism, and 1 had anisometropia. Remote review of all images improved sensitivity. CONCLUSIONS: The GoCheck Kids app had good sensitivity and adequate specificity in detecting AAPOS ARFs in our enriched cohort of young children.

Effectiveness of the GoCheck Kids Vision Screener in Detecting Amblyopia Risk Factors.

PURPOSE: The GoCheck Kids smartphone photoscreening app (Gobiquity Mobile Health, Scottsdale, Arizona, USA), introduced in 2014, is marketed to pediatricians with little published validation. We wished to evaluate the GoCheck Kids Screener for accuracy in detecting amblyopia risk factors (ARF) using 2013 American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus guidelines. DESIGN: Validity assessment. METHODS: Children 6 months to 6 years of age presenting from October 2016 to August 2017 were included. Children were screened with the GoCheck preloaded Nokia Lumia 1020, software version 4.6 with image processing version R4d, prior to undergoing a comprehensive eye examination by a pediatric ophthalmologist masked to the screener results. Determination of the presence of age-specific ARF was made based upon the examination and compared with the GoCheck recommendation. RESULTS: A total of 206 children were included (average age 43 months). When compared to examination, GoCheck had a sensitivity of 76.0% and specificity of 67.2% in detecting ARF. Positive predictive value was 57.0% and negative predictive value 83.0%. The screener results of 13 children were changed from "no risk factors" to "risk factors identified" based on the GoCheck remote review process. Four images remained "not gradable" and screening was unsuccessful in 3 children. CONCLUSION: In our high-risk population, this version of the Gocheck Kids smartphone app was useful in identifying ARF in children who are often not able to cooperate with visual acuity testing. This study informs pediatricians about the efficacy of this new screener as they make decisions about how to best detect vision problems in young children.

Use of the Spot Vision Screener for patients with developmental disability.

PURPOSE: To determine whether the Spot Vision Screener effectively detects amblyopia risk factors (ARFs) in patients with developmental disability using the 2013 guidelines of the American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus (AAPOS). METHODS: Children with developmental disability presenting for complete pediatric ophthalmologic examination were prospectively enrolled between June 2012 and March 2016. The following data were analyzed: presence of ARFs according to the AAPOS guidelines, refraction, eye alignment, and other ocular pathology. RESULTS: A total of 100 children (average age, 5.7 years; range, 2.2- 9.2 years) were included. The prevalence of ARFs in this cohort was 38%. The sensitivity of the Spot Vision Screener in detecting amblyopia risk factors was 84%; the specificity, 62%. The positive predictive value was 58%; the negative predictive value, 86%. CONCLUSIONS: In our study cohort the Spot Vision Screener provided good sensitivity and adequate specificity for a screening examination. Automated screeners may be useful in screening children with developmental disability.

Performance of the Spot Vision Screener in Children Younger Than 3 Years of Age.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the use of the Spot Vision Screener (Spot; Welch Allyn, Skaneateles Falls, New York, USA) for detection of amblyopia risk factors in children aged 6 months to 3 years, as defined by the 2013 guidelines of the American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus. DESIGN: Reliability analysis. METHODS: In this study, children seen from June 1, 2012, to April 30, 2016 were tested with the Spot during a routine visit. Enrolled children underwent a comprehensive eye examination including cycloplegic refraction and sensorimotor testing within 6 months of the testing date by a pediatric ophthalmologist masked to the Spot results. RESULTS: A total of 184 children were included. The Spot successfully obtained readings in 89.7% of patients. Compared with the ophthalmologist's examination, the Spot had an overall sensitivity of 89.8% and a specificity of 70.4%. CONCLUSION: The Spot achieved good sensitivity and specificity for detection of amblyopia risk factors in this young cohort, particularly in the older subgroup. Our data offer support for automated vision screening in young children.

Detecting High Hyperopia: The Plus Lens Test and the Spot Vision Screener.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the usefulness of the Plus Lens (Goodlite Company, Elgin, IL) test and the Spot Vision Screener (Welch Allyn, Skaneateles Falls, NY) in detecting high hyperopia in a pediatric population. METHODS: Between June and August 2015, patients were screened with the Spot Vision Screener and the Plus Lens test prior to a scheduled pediatric ophthalmology visit. The following data were analyzed: demographic data, Plus Lens result, Spot Vision Screener result, cycloplegic refraction, and examination findings. Sensitivity/specificity and positive/negative predictive values were calculated for the Plus Lens test and Spot Vision Screener in detecting hyperopia as determined by the "gold-standard" cycloplegic refraction. RESULTS: A total of 109 children (average age: 82 months) were included. Compared to the ophthalmologist's cycloplegic refraction, the Spot Vision Screener sensitivity for +3.50 diopters (D) hyperopia was 31.25% and the specificity was 100%. The Plus Lens sensitivity for +3.50 D hyperopia was 43.75% and the specificity was 89.25%. Spot Vision Screener sensitivity increased with higher degrees of hyperopia. CONCLUSIONS: In this preliminary study, the Plus Lens test and the Spot Vision Screener demonstrated moderate sensitivity with good specificity in detecting high hyperopia. [J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus. 2017;54(3):163-167.].

Detection of strabismus by the Spot Vision Screener.

BACKGROUND: The Spot Vision Screener, a new automated screener designed for use in schools and pediatric offices, refers children for strabismus based on the device's measurement of "gaze." We sought to evaluate its ability to detect manifest strabismus of ≥8(Δ) in primary position, which criteria is specified by the 2013 guidelines of the American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus for detection of amblyopia risk factors by automated vision screeners. METHODS: In this prospective study, new and returning patients seen in the pediatric ophthalmology clinic underwent screening with the Spot Vision Screener (version 1.1.51) prior to a complete examination by a pediatric ophthalmologist. A Research Electronic Data Capture database was created for results of Spot referral status and examination. Patients who were referred by the Spot for gaze were included as test positives. Patients found to have constant strabismus of ≥8(Δ) in primary position by the physician were considered referral positive. RESULTS: A total of 444 children (average age, 72 months; range, 11-221 months) were included. Of these, 93 (20.9%) met the referral-positive threshold for strabismus criteria on examination by the pediatric ophthalmologist. The sensitivity of the Spot to detect AAPOS-threshold strabismus was 77.17%; the specificity, 93.73%. Positive predictive value was 76.34%; negative predictive value, 94.0%. CONCLUSIONS: The Spot demonstrates good sensitivity and excellent specificity for detecting AAPOS-threshold strabismus.

The effectiveness of the Spot Vision Screener in detecting amblyopia risk factors.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the updated Spot Vision Screener (PediaVision, Welch Allyn, Skaneateles Falls, NY) in detecting amblyopia risk factors using 2013 guidelines of American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus (AAPOS). METHODS: In this prospective study, patients seen from June 2012 to November 2013 were tested with the Spot prior to examination by a pediatric ophthalmologist who was masked to test results. The following data were analyzed: age, subject testability, examination findings, and systemic and ocular pathology. Children were divided into three age groups to determine gold standard results according to the AAPOS guidelines. RESULTS: A total of 444 children (average age, 72 months) were included. Compared to the ophthalmologist's examination, the Spot sensitivity was 87.7% and the specificity was 75.9% in detecting amblyopia risk factors. Sensitivity did not differ significantly between age groups, although the positive predictive value improved in the older age groups. CONCLUSIONS: In our study cohort, the Spot provided good specificity and sensitivity in detecting amblyopia risk factors according 2013 AAPOS criteria, with minor improvements with updated versions.

Accuracy of double Maddox rod with induced hypertropia in normal subjects.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The double Maddox rod is a commonly used instrument to test for cyclotorsion in the clinical setting. This paper assesses the ability of patients without torsional complaint to accurately demonstrate torsional status with varying degrees of induced hypertropia as tested by double Maddox rod. METHODS: Thirty-seven orthophoric subjects underwent double Maddox rod testing with vertical prism of 3(Δ), 10(Δ), 16(Δ), 20(Δ), and 30(Δ). Subjective torsion was recorded for each prism diopter. RESULTS: Mean subjective torsion was recorded as 0.95°, 1.6°, 1.9°, 2.1°, and 2.2° for 3(Δ), 10(Δ), 16(Δ), 20(Δ), and 30(Δ), respectively. Torsion increased in a logarithmic manner as modeled by R™ software version 2.15.2. CONCLUSIONS: The double Maddox rod test as commonly used in clinical practice is both subjective and prone to administrator and subject error. Subjects have more difficulty properly aligning the double Maddox rod as distance between images is increased. It is also possible that recruitment of the oblique muscles during attempted vertical fusion leads to subjective torsion during double Maddox rod testing in otherwise normal participants.

Photoscreeners in the pediatric eye office: compared testability and refractions on high-risk children.

PURPOSE: To compare refractive data and testability of Spot (PediaVision) and Plusoptix A09 (Plusoptix, Inc) photoscreeners and to compare each device with traditional cycloplegic retinoscopy. DESIGN: Prospective, interventional case series. METHODS: After informed consent, patients underwent testing with the Spot and Plusoptix photoscreeners before their examination by a pediatric ophthalmologist masked to the results. Data including testability and estimated refractions were entered into a Research Electronic Data Capture database for statistical analysis. RESULTS: A total of 265 children were enrolled (mean age, 6.0 ± 3.4 years). Both devices produced a computer printout result in 250 (94.3%) of the patients. The Spot photoscreener provided a refractive estimate in all computer printouts, whereas the Plusoptix, used binocularly, provided a refractive estimate in 75.2% (188/250) of the printouts. Compared with cycloplegic retinoscopy, both devices underestimated hyperopia or overestimated myopia (-1.35 diopters [D] and -0.64 D, Spot and Plusoptix, respectively) and overestimated astigmatism (0.36 D and 0.32 D, Spot and Plusoptix, respectively). The intraclass correlation coefficient for spherical equivalents indicated good agreement between cycloplegic retinoscopy and Spot (0.806) and excellent agreement between cycloplegic retinoscopy and Plusoptix (0.898). CONCLUSIONS: The Spot photoscreener provided refractive data on a greater percentage of children. The photorefractors correlated with cycloplegic retinoscopy refractive findings for sphere and spherical equivalents, but underestimated hyperopia or overestimated myopia and overestimated astigmatism. The binocular refractions of Plusoptix agreed more closely with the refractions of our pediatric ophthalmologists.