The Complementary Roles of Photoscreening and Clinical Referrals for Amblyopia Risk Factor Detection

Authors

  • Vasco Miranda Ophthalmology Department, Unidade Local de Saúde de Santo António, Porto, Portugal; Instituto de Ciências Biomédicas Abel Salazar, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6066-6918
  • André Ferreira Ophthalmology Department, Unidade Local de Saúde de Santo António, Porto, Portugal; Instituto de Ciências Biomédicas Abel Salazar, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal; CINTESIS@RISE – Health Research Network, Faculty of Medicine, MEDCIDS, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8577-5128
  • Ricardo Parreira Ophthalmology Department, Unidade Local de Saúde de Santo António, Porto, Portugal
  • João M. Beirão Ophthalmology Department, Unidade Local de Saúde de Santo António, Porto, Portugal; Instituto de Ciências Biomédicas Abel Salazar, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8642-7010
  • Pedro Menéres Ophthalmology Department, Unidade Local de Saúde de Santo António, Porto, Portugal; Instituto de Ciências Biomédicas Abel Salazar, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1989-3465

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.48560/rspo.43667

Keywords:

Ambliopia/diagnóstico, Criança, Erros Refrativos, Fatores de Risco, Rastreio da Visão, Refração Ocular

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Many major health organizations recommend vision screening at least once between 3 and 5 years of age. In Portugal, in addition to clinical screening, the “Rastreio de Saúde Visual Infantil” (RSVI) program provides photoscreening at ages 2 and 4. We aimed to compare the demographic and clinical characteristics of children (aged 2-5 years) referred to a tertiary ophthalmology service by the RSVI screening program versus standard clinical referrals, and to evaluate the diagnostic performance of different models for detecting amblyopia and its risk factors.

METHODS: This observational, cross-sectional study analyzed records of 541 children, categorized into a Screening Referral Group (SRG, n=338), referred by RSVI, and a Standard Referral Group (STG, n=203), referred by pediatricians or family medicine physicians. Demographic, clinical, and refractive data were compared. The performance of screening models combining photoscreening (RSVI and AAPOS 2021 criteria), uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA), and stereopsis assessment was assessed using ROC analysis.

RESULTS: The SRG was younger (p<0.001) and had a higher prevalence of hypermetropic refractive errors (85.5% vs 54.2%), greater spherical equivalent, and greater anisometropia (p<0.001). Conversely, the STG had a higher prevalence of strabismus (19.2% vs 1.8%, p<0.001). The overall rate of amblyopia was similar (6.5% vs 6.7%), but it was primarily refractive in the SRG and strabismic/mixed in the STG. A model combining AAPOS photoscreening criteria with UCVA and stereoaucity had the highest diagnostic accuracy for amblyopia (AUC 0.932). A model combining RSVI criteria, UCVA, and stereoaucity was superior to RSVI alone for detecting amblyopia, strabismus, or the need for glasses (AUC 0.913 vs 0.760).

CONCLUSION: Photoscreening and standard clinical referrals are highly complementary pathways that identify significantly different patient populations. Photoscreening is effective at detecting presymptomatic amblyogenic refractive errors in younger children, while clinical suspicion remains crucial for identifying strabismus. Multi-modal screening strategies may lead to a more effective screening program.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Hu B, Liu Z, Zhao J, Zeng L, Hao G, Shui D, et al. The Global Prevalence of Amblyopia in Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Front Pediatr. 2022;10:819998. doi:10.3389/fped.2022.819998

Fu Z, Hong H, Su Z, Lou B, Pan CW, Liu H. Global prevalence of amblyopia and disease burden projections through 2040: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Ophthalmol. 2020;104:1164-70. doi:10.1136/bjophthalmol-2019-314759

Hutchinson AK, Morse CL, Hercinovic A, Cruz OA, Sprunger DT, Repka MX, et al. Pediatric Eye Evaluations Preferred Practice Pattern. Ophthalmology. 2023;130:222-70. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2022.10.030

Pang Y, Lyons SA, Nottingham Chaplin PK, Block SS, Fishman D, Ciner EB, et al. Recommended practices for vision screening in pre-school-age children: A 2025 update. Optom Vis Sci. 2025;102:589-95. doi: 10.1097/OPX.0000000000002290.

US Preventive Services Task Force. Vision Screening in Children Aged 6 Months to 5 Years: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA. 2017;318:836-44. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.11260

Arnold RW, Donahue SP, Silbert DI, Longmuir SQ, Bradford GE, Peterseim MM, et al. AAPOS uniform guidelines for instrument-based pediatric vision screen validation 2021. J AAPOS. 2022;26:1.e1-1.e6. doi: 10.1016/j.jaapos.2021.09.009. Erratum in: J AAPOS. 2022;26:349. doi: 10.1016/j.jaapos.2022.11.002.

Arnold R, Silbert D, Modjeskv H. Instrument Referral Criteria for Plusoptix, SPOT and 2WIN Targeting 2021 AAPOS Guidelines. Clin Ophthalmol. 2022;16:489-505. doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S342666. Erratum in: Clin Ophthalmol. 2025;19:1215-6. doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S531945.

Carlton J, Griffiths HJ, Mazzone P, Horwood AM, Sloot F; EUSCREEN Study Consortium. A Comprehensive Overview of Vision Screening Programmes across 46 Countries. Br Ir Orthop J. 2022;18:27-47. doi:10.22599/bioj.260

Kik J, Heijnsdijk EA, Mackey AR, Carr G, Horwood AM, Fronius M, et al. Availability of data for cost-effectiveness comparison of child vision and hearing screening programmes. J Med Screen. 2023;30:62-8. doi:10.1177/09691413221126677

Heijnsdijk EAM, Verkleij ML, Carlton J, Horwood AM, Fronius M, Kik J, et al. The cost-effectiveness of different visual acuity screening strategies in three European countries: A microsimulation study. Prev Med Rep. 2022;28:101868. doi:10.1016/j.pmedr.2022.101868

Direção-Geral de Saúde. Rastreio Saúde Visual Infantil: norma n° 015/2018 de 05/09/2018. [accessed Jan 2025] Available from: https://normas.dgs.min-saude.pt/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/rastreio-saude-visual-infantil.pdf

Misra N, Khanna RC, Mettla AL, Marmamula S, Keeffe JE. Agreement and diagnostic accuracy of vision screening in preschool children between vision technicians and spot vision screener. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2021;69:117-21. doi:10.4103/ijo.IJO_1740_19

Schmidt P, Maguire M, Dobson V, Quinn G, Ciner E, Cyert L, et al. Comparison of preschool vision screening tests as administered by licensed eye care professionals in the Vision In Preschoolers Study. Ophthalmology. 2004;111:637-50. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2004.01.022

Cruz OA, Repka MX, Hercinovic A, Cotter SA, Lambert SR, Hutchinson, et al. Amblyopia Preferred Practice Pattern. Ophthalmology. 2023;130:P136-78. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2022.11.003

Guimaraes SV, Veiga PA, Costa PS, Silva ED. Prediction and cost-effectiveness comparison of amblyopia screening methods at ages 3-4 years. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2022;32:2034-40. doi:10.1177/11206721211035634

Guimaraes S, Soares A, Freitas C, Barros P, Leite RD, Costa PS, et al. Amblyopia screening effectiveness at 3-4 years old: a cohort study. BMJ Open Ophthalmol. 2021;6:e000599. doi:10.1136/bmjophth-2020-000599

Downloads

Published

2026-06-13

How to Cite

Miranda, V., Ferreira, A., Parreira, R., M. Beirão, J., & Menéres, P. (2026). The Complementary Roles of Photoscreening and Clinical Referrals for Amblyopia Risk Factor Detection. Revista Sociedade Portuguesa De Oftalmologia, 50(2), 147–157. https://doi.org/10.48560/rspo.43667

Issue

Section

Original Article