Trial reportInvestigative ophthalmology & visual science2011
Efficacy of a web-based intervention to improve and sustain knowledge and screening for amblyopia in primary care settings.
Trial report in Investigative ophthalmology & visual science, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Online Digital Education for Postregistration Training of Medical Doctors: Systematic Review by the Digital Health Education Collaboration.Journal of medical Internet research · 2019Pooled it
- The effect of education seminars on pediatric vision screening in the primary care settings.International ophthalmology · 2022Article
- Interprofessional online learning for primary healthcare: findings from a scoping review.BMJ open · 2017Article
- A cardiovascular educational intervention for primary care professionals in Spain: positive impact in a quasi-experimental study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2015Article
- Vision and eye health in children 36 to <72 months: proposed data definitions.Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the efficacy of a physician-targeted website to improve knowledge and self-reported behavior relevant to strabismus and amblyopia ("vision") in primary care settings.
methodsEligible providers (filing Medicaid claims for at least eight well-child checks at ages 3 or 4 years, 1 year before study enrollment), randomly assigned to control (chlamydia and blood pressure) or vision groups, accessed four web-based educational modules, programmed to present interactive case vignettes with embedded questions and feedback. Each correct response, assigned a value of +1 to a maximum of +7, was used to calculate a summary score per provider. Responses from intervention providers (IPs) at baseline and two follow-up points were compared to responses to vision questions, taken at the end of the study, from control providers (CPs).
resultsMost IPs (57/65) responded at baseline and after the short delay (within 1 hour after baseline for 38 IPs). A subgroup (27 IPs and 42 CPs) completed all vision questions after a long delay averaging 1.8 years. Scores from IPs improved after the short delay (median score, 3 vs. 6; P = 0.0065). Compared to CPs, scores from IPs were similar at baseline (P = 0.6473) and higher after the short-term (P < 0.0001) and long-term (P < 0.05) delay.
conclusionsSignificant improvements after the short delay demonstrate the efficacy of the website and the potential for accessible, standardized vision education. Although improvements subsided over time, the IPs' scores did not return to baseline levels and were significantly better compared to CPs tested 1 to 3 years later.
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.