Roberts, Tawna L.

Importance Amblyopia is the leading cause of monocular decreased best-corrected vision in children. Early detection and intervention are key for optimal treatment outcomes; however, limited access to pediatric eye specialists may hinder timely care and affect visual outcomes. Given the shortage of specialty-trained eye care professionals in the US, there is need to support comprehensive eye care professionals who are willing to examine and treat children with amblyopia. Objective A panel from the Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group synthesized relevant literature and incorporated consensus opinion where direct evidence was lacking to create the Amblyopia Navigator Decision-Support Instrument, a free, web-based amblyopia decision support tool for eye care professionals. Evidence Review The decisions related to optimal diagnostic measures, pass/refer criteria, and management recommendations were informed by 147 publications. In areas where direct evidence was lacking, guidance was supplemented with clinical trial protocols or existing professional guidelines. When data were conflicting or unavailable, recommendations were established through committee consensus. A single reviewer independently performed standardized (though not systematic) literature reviews to avoid missing pertinent recent publications. Findings Presented are the process used, supporting evidence, and recommendations for testing methods, refractive correction, amblyopia treatment options, treatment adjustments, and monitoring schedules. Conclusions and Relevance Because amblyopia is common and typically responds well to treatment, decision support tools that optimize its management could increase access to pediatric eye care by facilitating earlier detection, enabling broader participation of primary eye care professionals, and ultimately improving visual outcomes. Through this work and the development of the forthcoming free, web-based application version, Amblyopia Navigator Decision-Support Instrument, the Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group has created decision support tools designed to assist optometrists and ophthalmologists in the care of children aged 3 to 17 years with amblyopia.

ABSTRACT Purpose To validate a custom smartphone application for at‐home visual acuity (VA) measurement in children. Methods A total of 452 children aged 3–17.5 years participated. Certified examiners measured in‐office test–retest VA (logMAR) using gold‐standard Amblyopia Treatment Study HOTV (3‐to‐6‐year‐olds, younger cohort) or electronic Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study (7‐to‐17.5‐year‐olds, older cohort) protocols at 3–4.5 m and app‐based VA at 1.5 m. Caregivers measured at‐home app‐based VA at 1.5 m. Results Comparing at‐home app‐based with gold‐standard VA, in eyes 20/40 or better, 95% (143/151) and 93% (91/98) of the younger and older cohorts were within 2 lines, respectively (mean differences: younger = −0.03, older = −0.04; 95% limits‐of‐agreement half‐width (LOA): younger = ±0.26, older = ±0.22). In eyes 20/50 or worse, 66% (42/64) and 75% (76/101) of the younger and older cohorts were within 2 lines, respectively (mean differences: younger = 0.11, older = 0.13, LOA: younger = ±0.50, older = ±0.51). Comparing in‐office app‐based VA with gold‐standard VA, in eyes 20/40 or better, 98% (160/164) and 94% (99/105) of the younger and older cohorts were within 2 lines, respectively (mean differences: younger = −0.03, older = −0.03; LOA: younger = ±0.22; older = ±0.24). In eyes 20/50 or worse, 85% (60/71) and 91% (101/111) of the younger and older cohorts were within 2 lines, respectively (mean differences: younger = 0.04; older = 0.04; LOA: younger = ±0.39; older = ±0.24). For gold‐standard test–retest, in eyes 20/40 or better, 99% (163/164) and 99% (104/105) of the younger and older cohorts had retest within 2 lines, respectively (mean differences: younger = 0.00; older = 0.01; LOA: younger = ±0.17; older = ±0.11). For 20/50 or worse, 92% (66/72) and 100% (111/111) in the younger and older cohorts were within 2 lines, respectively (mean differences: younger = 0.01; older = 0.02; LOA: younger = ±0.35; older = ±0.15). Conclusions Our app demonstrated good concordance with the gold standard at home and in the office for eyes with VA of 20/40 or better. However, concordance decreased considerably for eyes with VA 20/50 or worse, particularly at home.