Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21877675›Full record

ArticleJournal of pediatric ophthalmology and strabismus

The potential cost-effectiveness of amblyopia screening programs.

David B Rein, John S Wittenborn, Xinzhi Zhang, Michael Song, Jinan B Saaddine, Vision Cost-effectiveness Study Group

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of pediatric ophthalmology and strabismus. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Economic evaluations of vision screening to detect amblyopia and refractive errors in children: a systematic review.Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Visual profiling and vision screening of preschool children in Greenland.International journal of circumpolar health · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

David B ReinNORC at the University of Chicago, 55 East Monroe St., Chicago, IL 60603, USA. rein-david@norc.org
John S Wittenborn
Xinzhi Zhang
Michael Song
Jinan B Saaddine
Vision Cost-effectiveness Study Group

Funding

Evaluating the Cost-effectiveness of Realistic Screening Interventions Across SevR21EY019173 · NEI · RESEARCH TRIANGLE INSTITUTE · PI REIN, DAVID B · 2009 to 2010
$463k
NEI NIH HHS R21 EY019173PHS HHS REY019173A
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo estimate the incremental cost-effective-ness of amblyopia screening at preschool and kindergarten, the costs and benefits of three amblyopia screening scenarios were compared to no screening and to each other: (1) acuity/stereopsis (A/S) screening at kindergarten, (2) A/S screening at preschool and kindergarten, and (3) photoscreening at preschool and A/S screening at kindergarten.

methodsA probabilistic microsimulation model of amblyopia natural history and response to treatment with screening costs and outcomes estimated from two state programs was programmed. The probability was calculated that no screening and each of the three interventions were most cost-effective per incremental quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained and case avoided.

resultsAssuming a minimal 0.01 utility loss from monocular vision loss, no screening was most cost-effective with a willingness to pay (WTP) of less than $16,000 per QALY gained. A/S screening at kindergarten alone was most cost-effective at a WTP between $17,000 and $21,000. A/S screening at preschool and kindergarten was most cost-effective at a WTP between $22,000 and $75,000, and photoscreening at preschool and A/S screening at kindergarten was most cost-effective at a WTP greater than $75,000. Cost-effectiveness substantially improved when assuming a greater utility loss. All scenarios were cost-effective when assuming a WTP of $10,500 per case of amblyopia cured.

conclusionAll three screening interventions evaluated are likely to be considered cost-effective relative to many other potential public health programs. The choice of screening option depends on budgetary resources and the value placed on monocular vision loss prevention by funding agencies.

Indexed as

Models, EconomicAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAmblyopiaChildChild, PreschoolCost-Benefit AnalysisFinancing, PersonalHealth Care CostsHumansMass ScreeningMiddle AgedQuality-Adjusted Life YearsVision Screening

Identifiers

PMID21877675
PMCPMC3673536

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.