SynthesisBMC ophthalmology2009
Effectiveness of screening preschool children for amblyopia: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMC ophthalmology, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
20 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 52 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pediatric Eye Evaluations Preferred Practice Pattern.Ophthalmology · 2023Guideline
- Tests for detecting strabismus in children aged 1 to 6 years in the community.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Amblyopia.BMJ clinical evidence · 2011Pooled it
- Amblyopia and quality of life: a systematic review.Eye (London, England) · 2011Pooled it
- A systematic review of Amblyopia prevalence among the children of the world.Romanian journal of ophthalmologyPooled it
- Causes of Reduced Vision in Australian Children.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026Article
- National survey of paediatric vision screening programs across Canada: Identifying major gaps and call to action.Paediatrics & child health · 2021Article
- Comparing School-Aged Refraction Measurements Using the 2WIN-S Portable Refractor in Relation to Cycloplegic Retinoscopy: A Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of ophthalmology · 2021Article
- A situational analysis of clinical refraction services in the capital city of the Maldives.Medical hypothesis, discovery & innovation ophthalmology journal · 2021Article
- Comparison of the pediatric vision screening program in 18 countries across five continents.Journal of current ophthalmology · 2019Review
- Choosing appropriate tools and referral criteria for vision screening of children aged 4-5 years in Canada: a quantitative analysis.BMJ open · 2019Article
- Evidence for the need for vision screening of school children in Turkey.BMC ophthalmology · 2017Article
- Childhood amblyopia: current management and new trends.British medical bulletin · 2016Review
- [Possibilities and limitations of amblyopia screening with auto-refractometers].Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft · 2016Article
- Zagreb Amblyopia Preschool Screening Study: near and distance visual acuity testing increase the diagnostic accuracy of screening for amblyopia.Croatian medical journal · 2016Article
- Amblyopia Prevention Screening Program in Northwest Iran (Ardabil).International journal of preventive medicine · 2016Article
- Test Re-Test Reliability and Validity of Different Visual Acuity and Stereoacuity Charts Used in Preschool Children.Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR · 2015Article
- Outcome of vision screening by community health workers at immunization outlets in Nigeria to support access to early visual evaluation in children aged 0-2 years.Taiwan journal of ophthalmologyArticle
- Childhood vision screening in Canada: public health evidence and practice.Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publiqueReview
- A Multihead Attention Deep Learning Algorithm to Detect Amblyopia Using Fixation Eye Movements.Ophthalmology scienceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAmblyopia and amblyogenic factors like strabismus and refractive errors are the most common vision disorders in children. Although different studies suggest that preschool vision screening is associated with a reduced prevalence rate of amblyopia, the value of these programmes is the subject of a continuing scientific and health policy discussion. Therefore, this systematic review focuses on the question of whether screening for amblyopia in children up to the age of six years leads to better vision outcomes.
methodsTen bibliographic databases were searched for randomised controlled trials, non-randomised controlled trials and cohort studies with no limitations to a specific year of publication and language. The searches were supplemented by handsearching the bibliographies of included studies and reviews to identify articles not captured through our main search strategy.
resultsFive studies met the inclusion criteria. Of these, three studies suggested that screening is associated with an absolute reduction in the prevalence of amblyopia between 0.9% and 1.6% (relative reduction: between 45% and 62%). However, the studies showed weaknesses, limiting the validity and reliability of their findings. The main limitation was that studies with significant results considered only a proportion of the originally recruited children in their analysis. On the other hand, retrospective sample size calculation indicated that the power based on the cohort size was not sufficient to detect small changes between the groups. Outcome parameters such as quality of life or adverse effects of screening have not been adequately investigated in the literature currently available.
conclusionPopulation based preschool vision screening programmes cannot be sufficiently assessed by the literature currently available. However, it is most likely that the present systematic review contains the most detailed description of the main limitations in current available literature evaluating these programmes. Therefore, future research work should be guided by the findings of this publication.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.