Vision screening for children 36 to <72 months: recommended practices.

PURPOSE: This 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. RESULTS: There 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. CONCLUSIONS: The 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.

Risk factors for astigmatism in the Vision in Preschoolers Study.

PURPOSE: To determine demographic and refractive risk factors for astigmatism in the Vision in Preschoolers Study. METHODS: Three- to 5-year-old Head Start preschoolers (N = 4040) from five clinical centers underwent comprehensive eye examinations by study-certified optometrists and ophthalmologists, including monocular visual acuity testing, cover testing, and cycloplegic retinoscopy. Astigmatism was defined as the presence of greater than or equal to +1.5 diopters (D) cylinder in either eye, measured with cycloplegic refraction. The associations of risk factors with astigmatism were evaluated using the odds ratio (OR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI) from logistic regression models. RESULTS: Among 4040 Vision in Preschoolers Study participants overrepresenting children with vision disorders, 687 (17%) had astigmatism, and most (83.8%) had with-the-rule astigmatism. In multivariate analyses, African American (OR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.22 to 2.24), Hispanic (OR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.62 to 3.12), and Asian (OR, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.06 to 2.93) children were more likely to have astigmatism than non-Hispanic white children, whereas American Indian children were less likely to have astigmatism than Hispanic, African American, and Asian children (p < 0.0001). Refractive error was associated with astigmatism in a nonlinear manner, with an OR of 4.50 (95% CI, 3.00 to 6.76) for myopia (≤-1.0 D in spherical equivalent) and 1.55 (95% CI, 1.29 to 1.86) for hyperopia (≥+2.0 D) when compared with children without refractive error (>-1.0 D, <+2.0 D). There was a trend of an increasing percentage of astigmatism among older children (linear trend p = 0.06). The analysis for risk factors of with-the-rule astigmatism provided similar results. CONCLUSIONS: Among Head Start preschoolers, Hispanic, African American, and Asian race as well as myopic and hyperopic refractive error were associated with an increased risk of astigmatism, consistent with findings from the population-based Multi-ethnic Pediatric Eye Disease Study and the Baltimore Pediatric Eye Disease Study. American Indian children had lower risk of astigmatism.

Associations between hyperopia and other vision and refractive error characteristics.

PURPOSE: To investigate the association of hyperopia greater than +3.25 diopters (D) with amblyopia, strabismus, anisometropia, astigmatism, and reduced stereoacuity in preschoolers. METHODS: Three- to five-year-old Head Start preschoolers (N = 4040) underwent vision examination including monocular visual acuity (VA), cover testing, and cycloplegic refraction during the Vision in Preschoolers Study. Visual acuity was tested with habitual correction and was retested with full cycloplegic correction when VA was reduced below age norms in the presence of significant refractive error. Stereoacuity testing (Stereo Smile II) was performed on 2898 children during study years 2 and 3. Hyperopia was classified into three levels of severity (based on the most positive meridian on cycloplegic refraction): group 1: greater than or equal to +5.00 D, group 2: greater than +3.25 D to less than +5.00 D with interocular difference in spherical equivalent greater than or equal to 0.50 D, and group 3: greater than +3.25 D to less than +5.00 D with interocular difference in spherical equivalent less than 0.50 D. "Without" hyperopia was defined as refractive error of +3.25 D or less in the most positive meridian in both eyes. Standard definitions were applied for amblyopia, strabismus, anisometropia, and astigmatism. RESULTS: Relative to children without hyperopia, children with hyperopia greater than +3.25 D (n = 472, groups 1, 2, and 3) had a higher proportion of amblyopia (34.5 vs. 2.8%, p < 0.0001) and strabismus (17.0 vs. 2.2%, p < 0.0001). More severe levels of hyperopia were associated with higher proportions of amblyopia (51.5% in group 1 vs. 13.2% in group 3) and strabismus (32.9% in group 1 vs. 8.4% in group 3; trend p < 0.0001 for both). The presence of hyperopia greater than +3.25 D was also associated with a higher proportion of anisometropia (26.9 vs. 5.1%, p < 0.0001) and astigmatism (29.4 vs. 10.3%, p < 0.0001). Median stereoacuity of nonstrabismic, nonamblyopic children with hyperopia (n = 206) (120 arcsec) was worse than that of children without hyperopia (60 arcsec) (p < 0.0001), and more severe levels of hyperopia were associated with worse stereoacuity (480 arcsec for group 1 and 120 arcsec for groups 2 and 3, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The presence and magnitude of hyperopia among preschoolers were associated with higher proportions of amblyopia, strabismus, anisometropia, and astigmatism and with worse stereoacuity even among nonstrabismic, nonamblyopic children.

Accuracy of noncycloplegic retinoscopy, retinomax autorefractor, and SureSight vision screener for detecting significant refractive errors.

PURPOSE: To evaluate, by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, the ability of noncycloplegic retinoscopy (NCR), Retinomax Autorefractor (Retinomax), and SureSight Vision Screener (SureSight) to detect significant refractive errors (RE) among preschoolers. METHODS: Refraction results of eye care professionals using NCR, Retinomax, and SureSight (n = 2588) and of nurse and lay screeners using Retinomax and SureSight (n = 1452) were compared with masked cycloplegic retinoscopy results. Significant RE was defined as hyperopia greater than +3.25 diopters (D), myopia greater than 2.00 D, astigmatism greater than 1.50 D, and anisometropia greater than 1.00 D interocular difference in hyperopia, greater than 3.00 D interocular difference in myopia, or greater than 1.50 D interocular difference in astigmatism. The ability of each screening test to identify presence, type, and/or severity of significant RE was summarized by the area under the ROC curve (AUC) and calculated from weighted logistic regression models. RESULTS: For detection of each type of significant RE, AUC of each test was high; AUC was better for detecting the most severe levels of RE than for all REs considered important to detect (AUC 0.97-1.00 vs. 0.92-0.93). The area under the curve of each screening test was high for myopia (AUC 0.97-0.99). Noncycloplegic retinoscopy and Retinomax performed better than SureSight for hyperopia (AUC 0.92-0.99 and 0.90-0.98 vs. 0.85-0.94, P ≤ 0.02), Retinomax performed better than NCR for astigmatism greater than 1.50 D (AUC 0.95 vs. 0.90, P = 0.01), and SureSight performed better than Retinomax for anisometropia (AUC 0.85-1.00 vs. 0.76-0.96, P ≤ 0.07). Performance was similar for nurse and lay screeners in detecting any significant RE (AUC 0.92-1.00 vs. 0.92-0.99). CONCLUSIONS: Each test had a very high discriminatory power for detecting children with any significant RE.

Stereoacuity of preschool children with and without vision disorders.

PURPOSE: To evaluate associations between stereoacuity and presence, type, and severity of vision disorders in Head Start preschool children and determine testability and levels of stereoacuity by age in children without vision disorders. METHODS: Stereoacuity of children aged 3 to 5 years (n = 2898) participating in the Vision in Preschoolers (VIP) Study was evaluated using the Stereo Smile II test during a comprehensive vision examination. This test uses a two-alternative forced-choice paradigm with four stereoacuity levels (480 to 60 seconds of arc). Children were classified by the presence (n = 871) or absence (n = 2027) of VIP Study-targeted vision disorders (amblyopia, strabismus, significant refractive error, or unexplained reduced visual acuity), including type and severity. Median stereoacuity between groups and among severity levels of vision disorders was compared using Wilcoxon rank sum and Kruskal-Wallis tests. Testability and stereoacuity levels were determined for children without VIP Study-targeted disorders overall and by age. RESULTS: Children with VIP Study-targeted vision disorders had significantly worse median stereoacuity than that of children without vision disorders (120 vs. 60 seconds of arc, p < 0.001). Children with the most severe vision disorders had worse stereoacuity than that of children with milder disorders (median 480 vs. 120 seconds of arc, p < 0.001). Among children without vision disorders, testability was 99.6% overall, increasing with age to 100% for 5-year-olds (p = 0.002). Most of the children without vision disorders (88%) had stereoacuity at the two best disparities (60 or 120 seconds of arc); the percentage increasing with age (82% for 3-, 89% for 4-, and 92% for 5-year-olds; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The presence of any VIP Study-targeted vision disorder was associated with significantly worse stereoacuity in preschool children. Severe vision disorders were more likely associated with poorer stereopsis than milder or no vision disorders. Testability was excellent at all ages. These results support the validity of the Stereo Smile II for assessing random-dot stereoacuity in preschool children.

Prevalence of vision disorders by racial and ethnic group among children participating in head start.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the prevalence of amblyopia, strabismus, and significant refractive error among African-American, American Indian, Asian, Hispanic, and non-Hispanic white preschoolers in the Vision In Preschoolers study. DESIGN: Multicenter, cross-sectional study. PARTICIPANTS: Three- to 5-year old preschoolers (n=4040) in Head Start from 5 geographically disparate areas of the United States. METHODS: All children who failed the mandatory Head Start screening and a sample of those who passed were enrolled. Study-certified pediatric optometrists and ophthalmologists performed comprehensive eye examinations including monocular distance visual acuity (VA), cover testing, and cycloplegic retinoscopy. Examination results were used to classify vision disorders, including amblyopia, strabismus, significant refractive errors, and unexplained reduced VA. Sampling weights were used to calculate prevalence rates, confidence intervals, and statistical tests for differences. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prevalence rates in each racial/ethnic group. RESULTS: Overall, 86.5% of children invited to participate were examined, including 2072 African-American, 343 American Indian (323 from Oklahoma), 145 Asian, 796 Hispanic, and 481 non-Hispanic white children. The prevalence of any vision disorder was 21.4% and was similar across groups (P=0.40), ranging from 17.9% (American Indian) to 23.3% (Hispanic). Prevalence of amblyopia was similar among all groups (P=0.07), ranging from 3.0% (Asian) to 5.4% (non-Hispanic white). Prevalence of strabismus also was similar (P=0.12), ranging from 1.0% (Asian) to 4.6% (non-Hispanic white). Prevalence of hyperopia >3.25 diopter (D) varied (P=0.007), with the lowest rate in Asians (5.5%) and highest in non-Hispanic whites (11.9%). Prevalence of anisometropia varied (P=0.009), with the lowest rate in Asians (2.7%) and highest in Hispanics (7.1%). Myopia >2.00 D was relatively uncommon (<2.0%) in all groups with the lowest rate in American Indians (0.2%) and highest rate in Asians (1.9%). Prevalence of astigmatism >1.50 D varied (P=0.01), with the lowest rate among American Indians (4.3%) and highest among Hispanics (11.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Among Head Start preschool children, the prevalence of amblyopia and strabismus was similar among 5 racial/ethnic groups. Prevalence of significant refractive errors, specifically hyperopia, astigmatism, and anisometropia, varied by group, with the highest rate of hyperopia in non-Hispanic whites, and the highest rates of astigmatism and anisometropia in Hispanics.

Risk factors for amblyopia in the vision in preschoolers study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate risk factors for unilateral amblyopia and for bilateral amblyopia in the Vision in Preschoolers (VIP) study. DESIGN: Multicenter, cross-sectional study. PARTICIPANTS: Three- to 5-year-old Head Start preschoolers from 5 clinical centers, overrepresenting children with vision disorders. METHODS: All children underwent comprehensive eye examinations, including threshold visual acuity (VA), cover testing, and cycloplegic retinoscopy, performed by VIP-certified optometrists and ophthalmologists who were experienced in providing care to children. Monocular threshold VA was tested using a single-surround HOTV letter protocol without correction, and retested with full cycloplegic correction when retest criteria were met. Unilateral amblyopia was defined as an interocular difference in best-corrected VA of 2 lines or more. Bilateral amblyopia was defined as best-corrected VA in each eye worse than 20/50 for 3-year-olds and worse than 20/40 for 4- to 5-year-olds. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Risk of amblyopia was summarized by the odds ratios and their 95% confidence intervals estimated from logistic regression models. RESULTS: In this enriched sample of Head Start children (n = 3869), 296 children (7.7%) had unilateral amblyopia, and 144 children (3.7%) had bilateral amblyopia. Presence of strabismus (P<0.0001) and greater magnitude of significant refractive errors (myopia, hyperopia, astigmatism, and anisometropia; P<0.00001 for each) were associated independently with an increased risk of unilateral amblyopia. Presence of strabismus, hyperopia of 2.0 diopters (D) or more, astigmatism of 1.0 D or more, or anisometropia of 0.5 D or more were present in 91% of children with unilateral amblyopia. Greater magnitude of astigmatism (P<0.0001) and bilateral hyperopia (P<0.0001) were associated independently with increased risk of bilateral amblyopia. Bilateral hyperopia of 3.0 D or more or astigmatism of 1.0 D or more were present in 76% of children with bilateral amblyopia. CONCLUSIONS: Strabismus and significant refractive errors were risk factors for unilateral amblyopia. Bilateral astigmatism and bilateral hyperopia were risk factors for bilateral amblyopia. Despite differences in selection of the study population, these results validated the findings from the Multi-Ethnic Pediatric Eye Disease Study and Baltimore Pediatric Eye Disease Study.

Intertester agreement in refractive error measurements.

PURPOSE: To determine the intertester agreement of refractive error measurements between lay and nurse screeners using the Retinomax Autorefractor and the SureSight Vision Screener. METHODS: Trained lay and nurse screeners measured refractive error in 1452 preschoolers (3 to 5 years old) using the Retinomax and the SureSight in a random order for screeners and instruments. Intertester agreement between lay and nurse screeners was assessed for sphere, cylinder, and spherical equivalent (SE) using the mean difference and the 95% limits of agreement. The mean intertester difference (lay minus nurse) was compared between groups defined based on the child's age, cycloplegic refractive error, and the reading's confidence number using analysis of variance. The limits of agreement were compared between groups using the Brown-Forsythe test. Intereye correlation was accounted for in all analyses. RESULTS: The mean intertester differences (95% limits of agreement) were -0.04 (-1.63, 1.54) diopter (D) sphere, 0.00 (-0.52, 0.51) D cylinder, and -0.04 (1.65, 1.56) D SE for the Retinomax and 0.05 (-1.48, 1.58) D sphere, 0.01 (-0.58, 0.60) D cylinder, and 0.06 (-1.45, 1.57) D SE for the SureSight. For either instrument, the mean intertester differences in sphere and SE did not differ by the child's age, cycloplegic refractive error, or the reading's confidence number. However, for both instruments, the limits of agreement were wider when eyes had significant refractive error or the reading's confidence number was below the manufacturer's recommended value. CONCLUSIONS: Among Head Start preschool children, trained lay and nurse screeners agree well in measuring refractive error using the Retinomax or the SureSight. Both instruments had similar intertester agreement in refractive error measurements independent of the child's age. Significant refractive error and a reading with low confidence number were associated with worse intertester agreement.

The effect of changing from glasses to soft contact lenses on myopia progression in adolescents.

At the end of a clinical trial of bifocals as myopia treatment, subjects were allowed to select any type of optical correction they wished and were asked to return in 1 year. This report gives results of that last examination with emphasis on how progression rates differed between those remaining in their original type of glasses compared with those who switched to soft contact lenses. We found that myopia progressed at an age-adjusted average rate of 0.74 D in 19 children who switched to soft contact lens wear compared with 0.25 D for 24 children remaining in glasses (p < 0.0001). Increased growth of the vitreous chamber appeared to account for much of this excess myopia progression, although the difference in that variable did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.101). We also noted a 0.203 D steepening in the corneal curvature in contact lens wearers compared with spectacle wearers whose corneas steepened very little (0.014 D, p = 0.007). Soft contact lens wear was also accompanied by a greater change in the near-point phoria which moved 4.5 prism dioptres in the exo direction compared with spectacle wearers who experienced only a 1.4 prism dioptre divergent shift (p = 0.048).

A randomized clinical trial of bifocal glasses for myopic children with esophoria: results after 54 months.

BACKGROUND: We previously reported results of a randomized clinical trial of bifocals as a type of myopia correction for children with near-point esophoria. After 30 months, the rate of myopia progression in 36 children wearing bifocals averaged 0.40 D/yr compared to 0.50 D/yr in 39 children wearing single-vision glasses (p= 0.046, age-adjusted). Here we report on the 46 children in that study who completed 54 months of followup. METHODS: For each treatment group, we examined the pattern of change in myopia over the first and second halves of the 54-month period to see if the beneficial effect of wearing bifocals was present initially for those 46 children, as it was in the entire group, and to see if the myopia-slowing effect continued to accumulate during the second part of the study. During the last 12 months of the 54-month period, subjects were free to select any mode of myopic treatment, but this intent-to-treat analysis classified all children according to their original treatment assignment. RESULTS: During the first 24 months, the pattern of change in myopia differed between the two groups (p = 0.041), with those in bifocals showing slower progression. A similar trend was observed for vitreous chamber growth (p= 0.059). During the last 30 months, myopia progressed at a similar rate for both groups, including during the last year, when many subjects changed their mode of myopia correction. CONCLUSION: Wearing bifocals instead of single-vision glasses caused a slowing of myopia progression evident during the first two years. During the subsequent two-and-a-half years of followup, the difference in the degree of myopia was maintained, but did not increase.

Seasonal variation in myopia progression and ocular elongation.

PURPOSE: To evaluate possible seasonal variations in myopia progression and ocular elongation in school children. METHODS: Seventy-one children who were enrolled in a clinical trial of bifocals were examined every 6 months for 30 months. Three 6-month intervals ("winters") included none of the summer vacation from school, and two intervals ("summers") included all of the summer vacation. Myopia was evaluated, after cycloplegia with 2 drops of 1% tropicamide, by automated refractor, and changes in axial length and in vitreous chamber depth were measured by A-scan ultrasonography. Data from left and right eyes were averaged because there was no evidence of a significant eye-visit interaction. Analysis of variance with a planned contrast was used to evaluate differences between the observed rates of change over the two summers compared with expected rates assuming no seasonal effect. RESULTS: For 37 children in single-vision lenses, myopia progression rates over the two summers averaged 0.15 D compared with 0.32 D over the three winters. For 34 children in bifocal glasses, summer rates averaged 0.07 D compared with 0.30 D for winters. Analysis of variance showed that seasonal effects on myopia progression were significant (p < 0.025) for both groups for the first summer and approached significance for the second summer. Increases in vitreous chamber depth were also slower during the summer, significantly so (p < 0.01) for both summers in the single-vision group and for the second summer only in the bifocal group. Changes in axial length were somewhat slower in the summer, but the effect of season reached statistical significance in that variable only for the second summer in the bifocal group (p = 0.031). CONCLUSION: Myopia progression rates were slower during the 6-month periods that included all of the summer vacation than would be expected assuming no seasonal effect. Ocular growth was also slower in the summer; but that trend, in most cases, was statistically significant only for changes in vitreous chamber depth and not for axial length.