Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 10, 2026
Using an Automated Hirschberg Test App to Evaluate Ocular Alignment
Published on: March 24, 2020
Evaluating photoscreeners II: MTI and fortune videorefractor
C D Cooper1, G A Gole, J E Hall
1Community Child Health Service, Brisbane, Queensland.
Background:
Amblyopia is a public health problem, usually amenable to treatment if detected early. Photoscreeners are camera-based instruments which can detect risk factors for amblyopia such as squint, refractive errors and media opacities.
Objective:
To evaluate two commercially available photoscreeners, namely the MTI photoscreener (Medical Technology, Iowa City, IA, USA) and the Fortune Optical VRB-100 (Fortune Optical, Padova, Italy) videophotorefractor, in a selected childhood population, having a high prevalence of amblyopia, before undertaking a full-scale trial in the general population.
Subjects And Methods:
The study design was a double-masked study. One-hundred and five children aged between 12 and 44 months with either normal vision or known visual disorders were photoscreened without cycloplegia using the Fortune and the MTI photoscreeners. Each child had a full ophthalmic examination either on the day of screening or in the preceding 6 months. Risk factors were: any manifest strabismus (squint), hypermetropia >3.5 D, anisometropia > or =1 D sphere, myopia > or =2 D sphere, astigmatism > or =2 D, media opacity or fundus abnormality affecting vision. The prevalence of risk factors for amblyopia was 60%. Photoscreen images were reviewed by two independent masked observers for indicators of amblyopiogenic risk factors and compared to the full ophthalmological examination to determine sensitivity and specificity for each instrument.
Results:
Sensitivities and specificities for the detection of risk factors for amblyopia were as follows. Fortune photoscreener: reader 1, sensitivity 60%, specificity 75%; reader 2, sensitivity 68% specificity 86%. MTI photoscreener: reader 1, sensitivity 56%, specificity 79%; reader 2, sensitivity 61%, sensitivity 86%. The results for reader 1 and 2 showed no significant differences for either instrument.
Conclusion:
Both instruments performed unsatisfactorily in a study population aged 1-4 years with a high prevalence of amblyopiogenic risk factors. Accordingly, we do not believe that either instrument can be recommended to screen for eye disorders in children between the ages of 1 and 4 years because the low prevalence of amblyopia in this population demands very high sensitivity and specificity in order to avoid inappropriate over- or under-referral.
