ArticlePloS one2016
Evaluation and Acceptability of a Simplified Test of Visual Function at Birth in a Limited-Resource Setting.
Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Cohort Profile: the SMRU Refugee and Migrant Pregnancy Study in Western Thailand and Eastern Myanmar.Wellcome open research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Neurological examination, including visual fixation and tracking of a target, is routinely performed in the Shoklo Malaria Research Unit postnatal care units on the Thailand-Myanmar border. We aimed to evaluate a simple visual newborn test developed in Italy and performed by non-specialized personnel working in neonatal care units. An intensive training of local health staff in Thailand was conducted prior to performing assessments at 24, 48 and 72 hours of life in healthy, low-risk term singletons. The 48 and 72 hours results were then compared to values obtained to those from Italy. Parents and staff administering the test reported on acceptability. One hundred and seventy nine newborns, between June 2011 and October 2012, participated in the study. The test was rapidly completed if the infant remained in an optimal behavioral stage (7 ± 2 minutes) but the test duration increased significantly (12 ± 4 minutes, p < 0.001) if its behavior changed. Infants were able to fix a target and to discriminate a colored face at 24 hours of life. Horizontal tracking of a target was achieved by 96% (152/159) of the infants at 48 hours. Circular tracking, stripe discrimination and attention to distance significantly improved between each 24-hour test period. The test was easily performed by non-specialized local staff and well accepted by the parents. Healthy term singletons in this limited-resource setting have a visual response similar to that obtained to gestational age matched newborns in Italy. It is possible to use these results as a reference set of values for the visual assessment in Karen and Burmese infants in the first 72 hours of life. The utility of the 24 hours test should be pursued.
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.