This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Keith S. Morgan, MD; William D. Johnson, PhD
New Orleans

Arch Ophthalmol. 1988;106(8):1031-1032.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

In Reply.

—Drs McIntyre and LaRoche correctly address some of the concerns that we had in our evaluation of a screening device in a referral center. Our patients had a higher percentage of abnormal conditions and were more apt to be suspicious of examination techniques and uncooperative for testing. We believe that the children's prior experience with ophthalmologic examinations contributed to our lower success rate in young children and, in part, to the higher number of false-positive results, which were the result of inaccuracies in fixation and alignment rather than defects in the optics of the device. This problem could be circumvented by the use of either instant-development film or a video camera, both of which would allow the tester the ability to retest positives and to reduce the false-positive rate.

Even if testing in the general population shows similar rates of sensitivity and specificity as well as positive predictive . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?