Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28988161›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of ophthalmology2018

Should tumbling E go out of date in amblyopia screening? Evidence from a population-based sample normative in children aged 3-4 years.

Sandra Guimaraes, Tiago Fernandes, Patrício Costa, Eduardo Silva

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of ophthalmology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. The Waterloo Differential Acuity Test (WatDAT)-Testability and normative data.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

4 authors.

Sandra GuimaraesDepartment of Ophthalmology, Hospital de Braga, Braga, Portugal.
Tiago FernandesDepartment of Ophthalmology, Hospital de Braga, Braga, Portugal.
Patrício CostaSchool of Medicine, Life and Health Sciences Research Institute (ICVS), University of Minho, Braga, Portugal.
Eduardo SilvaCentro Cirúrgico de Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsTo determine a normative of tumbling E optotype and its feasibility for visual acuity (VA) assessment in children aged 3-4 years.

methodsA cross-sectional study of 1756 children who were invited to participate in a comprehensive non-invasive eye exam. Uncorrected monocular VA with crowded tumbling E with a comprehensive ophthalmological examination were assessed. Testability rates of the whole population and VA of the healthy children for different age subgroups, gender, school type and the order of testing in which the ophthalmological examination was performed were evaluated.

resultsThe overall testability rate was 95% (92% and 98% for children aged 3 and 4 years, respectively). The mean VA of the first-day assessment (first-VA) and best-VA over 2 days' assessments was 0.14 logMAR (95% CI 0.14 to 0.15) (decimal=0.72, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.73) and 0.13 logMAR (95% CI 0.13 to 0.14) (decimal=0.74, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.74). Analysis with age showed differences between groups in first-VA (F(3,1146)=10.0; p<0.001; η2=0.026) and best-VA (F(3,1155)=8.8; p<0.001; η2=0.022). Our normative was very highly correlated with previous reported HOTV-Amblyopia-Treatment-Study (HOTV-ATS) (first-VA, r=0.97; best-VA, r=0.99), with 0.8 to 0.7 lines consistent overestimation for HOTV-ATS as described in literature. Overall false-positive referral was 1.3%, being specially low regarding anisometropias of ≥2 logMAR lines (0.17%). Interocular difference ≥1 line VA logMAR was not associated with age (p=0.195).

conclusionsThis is the first normative for European Caucasian children with single crowded tumbling E in healthy eyes and the largest study comparing 3 and 4 years old testability. Testability rates are higher than found in literature with other optotypes, especially in children aged 3 years, where we found 5%-11% better testability rates.

Indexed as

AmblyopiaChild, PreschoolCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMass ScreeningReproducibility of ResultsVision TestsVisual Acuitydiagnostic tests/investigationepidemiologypublic healthvision

Identifiers

PMID28988161
PMCPMC5969336

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.