Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28969172›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR2017

Prevalence of Refractive Errors and Number Needed to Screen among Rural High School Children in Southern India: A Cross-sectional Study.

Deepika Dorothy John, Padma Paul, Evon Selina Kujur, Sarada David, Smitha Jasper, Jayaprakash Muliyil

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Prevalence of refractive errors in school-going children of Taif region of Saudi Arabia.Saudi journal of ophthalmology : official journal of the Saudi Ophthalmological Society
    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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Deepika Dorothy JohnPostgraduate Registrar, Department of Ophthalmology, CMCVellore, Tamil Nadu, India.
Padma PaulAssociate Professor, Department of Ophthalmology, CMC, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India.
Evon Selina KujurTutor Incharge, Department of Ophthalmology, CMC, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India.
Sarada DavidProfessor, Department of Ophthalmology, CMC, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India.
Smitha JasperAssociate Professor, Department of Ophthalmology, CMC, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India.
Jayaprakash MuliyilProfessor, Department of Community Health, CMC, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India.
Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAvoidable blindness is mainly due to uncorrected refractive errors (URE). School Eye Screening (SES) can be used as an initiative to address this issue.

aimTo determine prevalence of URE and Number Needed to Screen (NNS) to find one child with low vision or blindness from URE among rural school children. MATERIALS AND

methodsA cross-sectional study was performed in 22 government schools with sixth to ninth grades in Kaniyambadi block of Vellore District of Tamil Nadu, India. There were 4739 children on the rolls. Among children present, all those identified to have a visual deficit in either eye, using a single line 20/40 Snellen's optotype E chart at 6 m, were referred to the hospital for confirmatory evaluation. Blindness (uncorrected) was defined as inability to see 20/200 in the better eye. In two of these schools, visual deficits were validated through a second school based examination by a clinician.

resultsOf the 4739 children on rolls, 601 were absent; all 4138 (87.3%) who were present underwent screening; 2.3% (98) {95% Confidence Interval (CI) 1.8 to 2.8} failed the screening test in at least one eye and were referred for examination. Only 28 (28.6%) of 98 children who were referred came for examination to the hospital. In the 2 of the 22 schools where the visual deficit was validated, there were no false positives. The prevalence of refractive error in these two schools was 2.2% (95% CI 1.7 - 2.7). NNS to detect one child with low vision or blindness from URE was 147.

conclusionMagnitude of refractive error, low NNS, low response to referral necessitates complete care at school and hence a relook at the current SES program.

Indexed as

Avoidable blindnessChildhood blindnessLow visionMyopiaSchool eye screening

Identifiers

PMID28969172
PMCPMC5620813
OpenAlexW2751526018

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.