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.