Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 26, 2026
Assessing Early Stage Open-Angle Glaucoma in Patients by Isolated-Check Visual Evoked Potential
Published on: May 25, 2020
Comparison of the PlusoptiX A16 and vision screener V100
Jorge Jorge1, Paulo Fernandes1
1Clinical and Experimental Optometry Research Laboratory (CEORLab), Physics Center of Minho and Porto Universities (CF-UM-UP), School of Sciences, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal.
Clinical Relevance:
This study compares a novel photoscreening device with a previously validated one in a school-age population. It highlights a tendency of the new device to underestimate myopic spherical equivalent and overestimate hyperopic cases.
Purpose:
To compare the PlusoptiX A16 and Vision Screener V100 photoscreeners in a study population of school-age children.
Methods:
One hundred and thirty-three children, with a mean age of 6.4 ± 0.5 years, were evaluated using both the PlusoptiX A16 and Vision Screener V100 photoscreeners. The measurements were taken in random order in a room with diminished ambient lighting.
Results:
The mean refractive error values for the M component were 0.27 ± 0.67D (PlusoptiX A16) and 0.21 ± 0.58D (Vision Screener V100). For the J0 component, means were 0.16 ± 0.38D (PlusoptiX A16) and 0.06 ± 0.33D (Vision Screener V100) and for theJ45 component the means were 0.03 ± 0.17D (PlusoptiX A16) and 0.06 ± 0.22D (Vision Screener V100). When compared both instruments, statistically significant differences were observed for the M (p=0.017) and J0 (p=0.004) components. The agreement rates between PlusoptiX A16 and Vision Screener V100 across different refractive components were 80.5% for sphere, 82.0% for cylinder, and 40.6% for axis when considering a range of ±0.75 D for sphere and cylinder and ±25.0 degrees for cylinder axis. Simultaneously considering all three conditions, the overall agreement was 73.7%.
Conclusion:
The Vision Screener V100, while generally aligning well with PlusoptiX A16, tends to underestimate myopic spherical equivalent, overestimate hyperopic cases, and underestimate J0 astigmatism.
