Loading…

Screening for amblyopia: a comparison of paediatric letter tests

AIMS/BACKGROUND The measurement of visual acuity is the most widely accepted indicator of amblyopia and is thought by some to be the only effective screening test. The aim of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of the traditional single optotype Sheridan-Gardiner test (SGT) in the measur...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:British journal of ophthalmology 1997-06, Vol.81 (6), p.465-469
Main Authors: Simmers, Anita J, Gray, Lyle S, Spowart, Katherine
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:AIMS/BACKGROUND The measurement of visual acuity is the most widely accepted indicator of amblyopia and is thought by some to be the only effective screening test. The aim of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of the traditional single optotype Sheridan-Gardiner test (SGT) in the measurement of visual acuity and the detection of amblyopia, compared with the log based linear format Glasgow acuity cards (GAC). METHODS In the present study visual acuity was measured monocularly in 702 primary 1 schoolchildren using both acuity tests. RESULTS A significant difference was found in the mean (SD) visual acuity measured with GAC (0.9 (0.08) modified logMAR) and SGT (1.13 (0.09) modified logMAR), df=632, t=−59.08, p=0.0001. The majority of children (89.3%) achieved visual acuities better than 6/6 in either eye when using the single optotype test. If the 95% confidence limits for a significant interocular difference in acuity are used as criteria for the detection of unilateral amblyopia, GAC were found to be the most sensitive, correctly identifying 100%, while SGT identified 55% of the children with unilateral amblyopia. CONCLUSION The results of this study highlight several problems with both the test format and testing procedure in the present school screening system.
ISSN:0007-1161
1468-2079
DOI:10.1136/bjo.81.6.465