ArticleJournal of pediatric ophthalmology and strabismus
The potential cost-effectiveness of amblyopia screening programs.
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.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- 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 · 2022Pooled it
- Scope and costs of autorefraction and photoscreening for childhood amblyopia-a systematic narrative review in relation to the EUSCREEN project data.Eye (London, England) · 2021Pooled it
- Vision screening of Greenlandic children evaluating efficacy, coverage and future directions.Acta ophthalmologica · 2026Article
- Visual profiling and vision screening of preschool children in Greenland.International journal of circumpolar health · 2025Article
- Cost-effectiveness of screening for amblyopia among kindergarten children in China.Preventive medicine reports · 2024Article
- Cost-effectiveness of Universal School- and Community-Based Vision Testing Strategies to Detect Amblyopia in Children in Ontario, Canada.JAMA network open · 2023Article
- The cost-effectiveness of different visual acuity screening strategies in three European countries: A microsimulation study.Preventive medicine reports · 2022Article
- Canon CP-TX1 camera - As a screening tool for amblyogenic risk factors.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2022Article
- Mandated Kindergarten Eye Examinations in a US Suburban Clinic: Is It Worth the Cost?Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2021Article
- Amblyopia screening effectiveness at 3-4 years old: a cohort study.BMJ open ophthalmology · 2021Article
- Cost comparison between botulinum neurotoxin and surgery in the treatment of infantile esotropia in a tertiary public hospital.BMJ open ophthalmology · 2021Article
- Development of Refractive Parameters in 3- to 6-Year-Old Children and Its Application in Myopia Prediction and Intervention Guidance.Computational and mathematical methods in medicine · 2021Article
- The W.H.E.E.L.S. Preschool Vision Screening Program's Initial Outcomes for 12,402 Children Screened Using the Plusoptix Photoscreener.International scholarly research notices · 2014Article
- The economic burden of vision loss and eye disorders among the United States population younger than 40 years.Ophthalmology · 2013Article
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.
Funding
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
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.