Sandra Guimaraes

Introduction: With high increase in myopia prevalence, we aimed to assess whether Plusoptix_A09 can be used in myopic children over spectacles to predict visual acuity (VA) and myopic refraction changes. Methods: Myopic children underwent a complete ophthalmological examination. Plusoptix_A09 was performed over spectacles. VA changes, refraction changes and time since previous glasses prescription, were determined. Age, current or past history of amblyopia, presence of strabismus and self-perception of VA changes were registered. Results: In total, 199 patients were included. Spherical power (SP) and spherical equivalent (SE) measured by Plusoptix_A09 over spectacles predicted both VA changes (p < 0.001) and refraction changes (p < 0.001). Values of SP < − 0.06D or SE < − 0.22D indicated a VA decrease (AUC > 0.9, p < 0.01) for sensitivity and specificity of 85.1%, 82.1% and 82.6%, 83.3%, respectively. Age and ophthalmological comorbidities did not influence Plusoptix_A09 measurements (p > 0.05). Plusoptix_A09 over spectacles was a stronger predictor of VA changes when compared to children's self-perception, either in 4–9-year-old patients (p < 0.001 versus p = 0.628) and in 10–18-year-old children (OR < = 0.066 versus OR = 0.190). A decrease in SP and SE of − 0.10D in Plusoptix_A09 predicted a myopia progression of − 0.04D and − 0.05D, respectively. Conclusion/Relevance: This study unveiled new features for the Plusoptix, a worldwide available photoscreener used in amblyopia screening. When Plusoptix is performed in children with their glasses on, it can rapidly predict myopia progression. For each decrease of − 0.10D in Plusoptix, a myopia progression of -0.05D is expected. Moreover, Plusoptix is more reliable than children's self-perception of visual acuity changes, making it a useful tool either in primary care or ophthalmology practice

Purpose: To compare 0.01% atropine with DIMS spectacle lenses in the prevention of myopia progression in European children. Methods: This was a retrospective study including data from pediatric European patients with myopia. From November 2021 to March 2022, only 0.01% atropine was prescribed because DIMS lenses were still not available in Portugal. From March to October 2022, only DIMS spectacle lenses were prescribed due to patients’ parents’ preference. Myopia progression endpoints were axial length (AL) and spherical equivalent (SE) differences between before and 6 months after treatment. AL and SE evolution were compared using a general linear model with repeated measures. Results: The study included 98 eyes from 50 patients: 47 in the atropine group and 51 in the DIMS group. There were no statistically significant differences between groups in terms of initial AL, initial SE, sex or age. The mean AL elongation at 6 months was 0.057 mm in the atropine group (SD = 0.118) and 0.002 mm (SD = 0.077) in the DIMS group. SE progression was − 0.098 (SD = 0.232) D in the atropine group and − 0.039 (SD = 0.105) D in the DIMS group. AL elongation was significantly lower in the DIMS lens group (p = 0.038, partial Eta² = 0.045). There was no difference in SE progression between groups (p = 0.302, partial Eta² = 0.011). Conclusion: Comparison between 0.01% atropine eyedrops and DIMS spectacle lenses for slowing the progression of myopia favored DIMS lenses in terms of AL elongation in a short-term follow-up. There was no difference in terms of SE between groups.

Introduction: With high increase in myopia prevalence, we aimed to assess if Plusoptix_A09 can be used in myopic children over spectacles to predicted visual acuity (VA) and myopic refraction changes. Methods: Myopic children underwent a complete ophthalmological examination. Plusoptix_A09 was performed over spectacles. VA changes, refraction changes and time since previous glasses prescription, were determined. Age, current or past history of amblyopia, presence of strabismus and self-perception of VA changes were registered. Results: 199 patients were included. Spherical power (SP) and spherical equivalent (SE) measured by Plusoptix_A09 over spectacles predicted both VA changes (p<.001) and refraction changes (p<.001). Values of SP<-0.06D or SE<-0.22D indicated a VA decrease (AUC>0.9, p0.05). Plusoptix_A09 over spectacles was a stronger predictor of VA changes when compared to children's self-perception, either in 4-9-year-old patients (p<.001 versus p=.628) and in 10-18-year-old children (OR<=0.066 versus OR=0.190). A decrease in SP and SE of -0.10D in Plusoptix_A09 predicted a myopia progression of -0.04D and -0.05D, respectively. Conclusion/Relevance: This study unveiled new features for the Plusoptix, a worldwide available photoscreener used in amblyopia screening. When Plusoptix is performed in children with their glasses on, it can rapidly predict myopia progression. For each decrease of -0.10D in Plusoptix, a myopia progression of -0.05D, is expected. Moreover, Plusoptix is more reliable than children's self-perception of visual acuity changes, making it a useful tool either in primary care or ophthalmology practice.

Purpose: Compare the performance of different amblyopia screening tests. Methods: Based on exploratory factor analyses (EFA) of different screening tests performed in 3295 children, we created models of screening strategies in a matrix with: uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA), Plusoptix measurements (PO), Randot Stereo-test (SR), and Cover-Test (CT). Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves and confusion matrix were used to compare performance of different model’s algorithm to predict new diagnosis of amblyopia. Estimated screening costs per screened and treated child were compared. Results: Regression analyses revealed that, although all models predicted amblyopia (all p < 0.001), only models including PO or UCVA had higher prediction capacity ( R² > 0.4) and better discriminating ROC curves (AUC > 0.95; p < 0.001). For 96% sensitivity, UCVA + PO was the most cost-effective model, since the estimated average screening costs per treated child, almost doubled and tripled if using PO or UCVA alone, respectively, versus using both exams. When UCVA + PO is not possible to implement, adding SR to either UCVA or PO resulted in cost-savings of 28% and 18%, respectively. Conclusions: In a previous unscreened population, aged 3–4 years, screening programs using either UCVA or PO alone, should reconsider doing both tests simultaneously, since, for a high level of sensitivity, using simultaneously UCVA + PO is more cost-effective, per screened, and treated amblyopia. Concerns relating higher time-consuming exams for the combination of UCVA + PO should be surpassed, since costs per treated child drop considerably. When children benefit from good primary-care routine examinations since birth, no benefit was found for using CT in a screening setting. SR showed little benefit.

Objective To study the effectiveness of amblyopia screening at ages 3–4. Methods and Analysis From a population with no previous screening, a cohort of 2300 children with 3–4 years old attending school (91% of children this age attend school in Portugal), were submitted to a complete ophthalmological evaluation. Amblyopia was diagnosed, treated and followed. Amblyopia prevalence, treatment effectiveness, absolute risk reduction (ARR), number needed to screen (NNS) and relative risk reduction (RRR) were estimated. Results Past/present history of amblyopia was higher than 3.1%–4.2%, depending on amblyopia definition normatives. Screening at age 3–4, had estimated ARR=2.09% (95% CI 1.50% to 2.68%) with a reduced risk of amblyopia in adulthood of 87% (RRR). NNS was 47.8 (95% CI 37.3 to 66.7). Treatment effectiveness of new diagnosis was 88% (83% if we include children already followed). 91% of new amblyopia diagnoses were refractive (of which 100% surpassed amblyopia Multi-Ethnic Pediatric Eye Disease Study criteria after treatment), while most strabismic amblyopias were already treated or undertreatment. Only 30% of children with refractive amblyopia risk factors that were not followed by an ophthalmologist, ended up having amblyopia at age 3–4. Eye patch was needed equally in new-diagnosis versus treated-earlier refractive amblyopia. Conclusions Screening amblyopia in a whole-population setting at age 3–4 is highly effective. For each 48 children screened at age 3–4, one amblyopia is estimated to be prevented in the future (NNS). Screening earlier may lead to overdiagnosis and overtreatments: Treating all new diagnosis before age 3–4 would have a maximal difference in ARR of 0.3%, with the possible burden of as much as 70% children being unnecessary treated before age 3–4. Involving primary care, with policies for timely referral of suspicious/high-risk preverbal children, plus whole screening at age 3–4 seems a rational/effective way of controlling amblyopia.

Purpose: To analyze how the Plusoptix S04 (Plusoptix, Atlanta, GA), a widely used technology for amblyopia screening, predicts amblyopia. Methods: A total of 1,547 children aged 3 to 4 years underwent a non-invasive eye examination in a whole population screening. The Plusoptix was measured binocularly three consecutive times. Seven models were developed: the first (P1), second (P2), and third (P3) measure of Plusoptix, the mean of P1, P2, and P3 (Pmean123), the maximal value of P1, P2, and P3 (Pmax123), the mean of P1 and P2 (Pmean12), and the maximal value of P1 and P2 (Pmax12). Results: Internal consistency was excellent for sphere, cylinder (alpha = 0.92 vs 0.97), aniso-sphere, and aniso-cylinder (alpha = 0.87 vs 0.86). All models predicted amblyopia ( P < .001); there was 2.3% new diagnosis and 5.1 events per variable. A bootstrap analysis with 1,000 samples confirmed the stability of the model. Astigmatism ( P < .001; odds ratio [OR] = 2.1 to 3.6) and aniso-sphere ( P < .001; OR = 3.6 to 9.0) predicted amblyopia. Although sphere, when measurable, did not predict amblyopia ( P > .19; OR = 1.2 to 1.3), the likelihood of amblyopia presence was 100 times higher when the Plusoptix displayed “hyper.” All receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were significant ( P < .001), with no differences between them (all P > .16). Adjusting the cut-off from ROC curves for the highest sensitivity, Pmax12 referred 31.9% and 16.1% fewer patients than P1 and Pmean12, respectively. A third measure revealed accommodation-related false-negative results; therefore, adding measurements showed no benefit. Conclusions: This was the first study to assess the Plusoptix's prediction of amblyopia. When aiming for maximal sensitivity, the Plusoptix refers many children (> 20% children in all models). The first measure refers more children than two measures. Non-measurable results must be considered abnormal because the chance of amblyopia presence was high. [ J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus . 2019;56(5):305–312.]

Introduction: Amblyopia requires a timely diagnosis and treatment to attain maximum vision recovery. Specialty literature is lacking on how early amblyopia is referred. We aimed to understand if there are mean age differences at first referral for ophthalmologic tertiary center consultation among non-amblyopic and different types of amblyopia, in a context of lack of population screening.Material and Methods: In this retrospective model, the sample corresponded to all children born in Braga Hospital during 1997 - 2012 (3 - 18 years-old), with an ophthalmologic consultation in 2014. Data was collected from the clinical records and children were divided in a non-amblyopic versus amblyopic group. The amblyopic group was subdivided in strabismic versus refractive (anisometropic/bilateral).Results: The sample had a total of 1665 participants, 1369 (82.2%) without amblyopia and 296 (17.8%) with amblyopia. Among amblyopia: 67.9% (n = 201) refractive, 32.1% (n = 95) strabismic. Within refractive amblyopia: 63.7% (n = 128) anisometropic and 36.3% (n = 73) bilateral. The mean age at first consultation was 6.24 ± 3.90 years-old: 6.39 ± 3.98 for non-amblyopic and 5.76 ± 3.58 for amblyopic. Among amblyopia subgroups, there were significant differences in mean age at first consultation (F3,1250 = 8.45; p < 0.001; η2 = 0.020). Strabismic and bilateral refractive amblyopia were referred earlier, when compared to non-amblyopia or anisometropic amblyopia (p < 0.05). Anisometropic amblyopia had the highest first consultation mean age: 6.92 ± 3.57 years-old.Discussion: Without specific pre-school screening, children with amblyopia were referred to their first ophthalmologic evaluation significantly later than desired, especially anisometropic amblyopia, with a postschool mean age for first consultation.Conclusion: Recognizing high-risk children is essential for earlier referral and helps minimize future visual handicap.

Purpose: To assess the role of risk factors for amblyopia, such as family history and neonatal background, for the prediction of either strabismic amblyopia or refractive amblyopia. Methods: In this retrospective case-control model, the study population included all children born at the Hospital de Braga during 1997-2012 (3 to 18 years old) with ophthalmologic consultation in 2014. Data collection was performed from the clinical database and through telephone questionnaire surveys. Results: A total of 298 (50%) controls and 298 (50%) cases (120 [40.3%] strabismic amblyopia and 178 [59.7%] refractive amblyopia) were analyzed. A significantly lower birthweight was detected in patients with strabismic amblyopia (mean 2,961 g [95% confidence interval (CI) 2,827-3,096]) compared to controls (mean 3,198 g [95% CI 3,125-3,271]) (p = 0.002). Five-minute Apgar was significantly lower in patients with strabismic amblyopia (mean 9.57 [95% CI 9.37-9.77]) than in controls (mean 9.83 [95% CI 9.77-9.90]) (p = 0.004) or patients with refractive amblyopia (mean 9.79 [95% CI 9.69-9.89]) (p = 0.031). Family history of either amblyopia or strabismus was associated with amblyopia (χ² [2, n = 562] = 12.66; p = 0.002; Cramer V = 0.150; χ² [2, n = 561] = 11.0; p = 0.004; Cramer V = 0.140), but was significantly more associated with strabismic amblyopia (p = 0.0023 and p = 0.0032) than with refractive amblyopia (p = 0.48 and p = 0.015, respectively). Multinomial logistic regression model explained 50.8% of the variance in amblyopia development. Low 5-minute Apgar had a relevant odds ratio (OR) for either strabismic amblyopia (OR 3.44; p = 0.066) or refractive amblyopia (OR 3.30; p = 0.077). Conclusions: This division in amblyopia subtypes gives a new perspective of the risk factors for amblyopia, with family history and some obstetrician/neonatal outcomes appearing to be more relevant in strabismic amblyopia. Educating health care providers to recognize these risk factors can result in an early ophthalmologic referral.