New Age Borders Obtained from Spot Photoscreener by Using Multivariate Cluster Analysis

Erkan Bulut; Yusuf  Çelik; Özlem Dayı; Hatice Bulut

doi:10.5152/EurJTher.2022.21041

Authors

Erkan Bulut Department of Ophthalmology, Beylikdüzü State Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3488-1515
Yusuf Çelik Department of Biostatistics, Biruni University Faculty of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2849-4033
Özlem Dayı Department of Ophthalmology, Beylikdüzü State Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
Hatice Bulut Department of Child Development, Gelişim University, Vocational School of Health Services, Istanbul,Turkey https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9028-1605

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5152/EurJTher.2022.21041

Keywords:

Age border, classification, cluster analysis, dendrogram, photoscreener

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study is to analyze all the variables obtained from photoscreener using hierarchical cluster analysis to create more homogeneous age groups for more reliable and consistent measurement by photoscreener.

Methods: The variables obtained from photoscreener examination of consecutive children who attended the ophthalmology department were evaluated. Medical records of the children were evaluated to ontain data including refractive parameters, deviation angle, pupil diameter variables and the calculated spherical equivalent, the cylindrical power vector J0, J45 values. These variables were analyzed by the multivariate cluster analysis.

Results: Based on a dendrogram, 4 main clusters of similar quality variables were created. The calculated spherical equivalent decreased gradually from cluster I to IV, from 0.745 D to –0.235 D. The average pupil size in the Ist cluster was 5.06 mm, while in the IVth cluster, it was 6.38 mm. The proposed new age borders are distinct and statistically significant (P <.001). The ultimate proposed new age borders were found as 1-20, 21-64, 65-101, and 102-120 months, respectively.

Conclusions: We proposed new age borders for the evaluation of refraction and pupil size of children which create new groups with a statistically different and homogeneous distribution. The proposed new age borders in this research would provide more reliable and consistent measurement results for clinical diagnosis

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

Hashemi H, Khabazkhoob M, Asharlous A, Yekta A, Emamian MH, Fotouhi A. Overestimation of hyperopia with autorefraction compared with retinoscopy under cycloplegia in school-age children. Br J Ophthalmol. 2018;102(12):1717-1722.

Silbert DI, Arnold RW, Matta NS. Comparison of the iScreen and the MTI photoscreeners for the detection of amblyopia risk factors in children. J AAPOS. 2013;17(1):34-37.

Dikkaya F, Erdur SK. Comparison of the PlusOptix S09 and Spot Vision photorefractor to cycloretinoscopy. Int Ophthalmol. 2019;39(8):1671-1678.

Peterseim MMW, Papa CE, Wilson ME, et al. The effectiveness of the Spot Vision Screener in detecting amblyopia risk factors. J AAPOS. 2014;18(6):539-542.

Peterseim MMW, Davidson JD, Trivedi R, Wilson ME, Papa CE, Cheeseman EW. Detection of strabismus by the Spot Vision Screener. J AAPOS. 2015;19(6):512-514.

Panda L, Barik U, Nayak S, et al. Performance of photoscreener in detection of refractive error in all age groups and amblyopia risk factors in children in a tribal district of Odisha: the tribal Odisha eye disease study (TOES) No. 3. Transl Vis Sci Technol. 2018;7(3):12.

Kirk VG, Clausen MM, Armitage MD, Arnold RW. Preverbal photoscreening for amblyogenic factors and outcomes in amblyopia treatment: early objective screening and visual acuities. Arch Ophthalmol. 2008;126(4):489-492.

Eibschitz-Tsimhoni M, Friedman T, Naor J, Eibschitz N, Friedman Z. Early screening for amblyogenic risk factors lowers the prevalence and severity of amblyopia. J AAPOS. 2000;4(4):194-199.

Ransbarger KM, Dunbar JA, Choi SE, Khazaeni LM. Results of a community vision-screening program using the Spot photoscreener. J AAPOS. 2013;17(5):516-520.

Zhang L, He X, Qu X,et al. Refraction and ocular biometry of preschool children in Shanghai, China. J Ophthalmol. 2018;2018:5205946.

McCullough S, Adamson G, Breslin KMM, McClelland JF, Doyle L, Saunders KJ. Axial growth and refractive change in white European children and young adults: predictive factors for myopia [sci rep.]. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):15189.

Dobson V, Fulton AB, Sebris SL. Cycloplegic refractions of infants and young children: the axis of astigmatism. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1984;25(1):83-87.

Gwiazda J, Scheiman M, Mohindra I, Held R. Astigmatism in children: changes in axis and amount from birth to six years. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1984;25(1):88-92.

Pärssinen O, Kauppinen M, Viljanen A. Astigmatism among myopics and its changes from childhood to adult age: a 23-year follow-up study. Acta Ophthalmol. 2015;93(3):276-283.

Satou T, Takahashi Y, Niida T. Comparison of refractive value and pupil size under monocular and binocular conditions between the Spot Vision Screener and binocular open-field autorefractor. Strabismus. 2020;28(4):186-193.

Gaiser H, Moore B, Srinivasan G, Solaka N, He R. Detection of amblyogenic refractive error using the spot vision screener in children. Optom Vis Sci. 2020;97(5):324-331.

Silbert J, Matta N, Tian J, Singman E, Silbert DI. Pupil size and anisocoria in children measured by the plusoptiX photoscreener. J AAPOS. 2013;17(6):609-611.