ArticleDer Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft2016
[Possibilities and limitations of amblyopia screening with auto-refractometers].
Article in Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Amblyopia-Basic principles and current diagnostic and therapeutic standards].Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft · 2019Article
- Refractive errors.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Amblyopia is a frequent vision disorder with a prevalence of 3-6%, for which early treatment is more effective. More than half of the cases of amblyopia are due to refractive errors so that they are not obvious due to strabismus or other ocular abnormalities; therefore, examinations for early recognition are essential. Because no nationwide ophthalmological examination of infants with cycloplegia has been established in Germany, screening for refractive errors in the first 3 years of life could be very helpful. Only children with a very high risk of ametropia should be referred for a full ophthalmological and orthoptic assessment of cycloplegia in order to prevent excess prescription of eyeglasses. Mild amblyopia with a borderline refraction error can be more reliably detected with visual acuity tests at a later age of 3-4 years and still be treated successfully before entering school. Even with a good sensitivity and specificity of approximately 90%, refraction screening with handheld binocular video refractometers has a positive predictive value of 30%, which should be considered acceptable; however, screening with refractometers alone is insufficient to detect all types of amblyopia. Cataracts can easily be detected in >95% of patients but microstrabismus <6° cannot be detected with sufficient reliability. If other risk factors, such as a negative Lang stereopsis test, ptosis, other ocular abnormalities, developmental delay or a positive family history are present, a full ophthalmological evaluation with cycloplegic refraction is necessary.
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.