SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2017
Tests for detecting strabismus in children aged 1 to 6 years in the community.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Automated strabismus evaluation: a critical review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Pooled it
- Tests for detecting strabismus in children aged 1 to 6 years in the community.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- The reliability of the angle of deviation measurement from the Photo-Hirschberg tests and Krimsky tests.PloS one · 2021Trial
- Community-based paediatric eye care in low- and middle-income countries: bridging the gap between policy and practice.BMJ paediatrics open · 2026Review
- Wearable health devices for pediatric ophthalmology.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Review
- Evaluation of a Novel Virtual Reality Simulated Alternate Cover Test to Assess Strabismus: A Prospective, Masked Study.American journal of ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Refractive error and angle of deviation in basic esotropia versus exotropia: a comparative study.International journal of ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Effect of Midface Surgery on Ocular Outcomes in Patients with Orbital and Midface Malformations.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Explainable AI for Retinoblastoma Diagnosis: Interpreting Deep Learning Models with LIME and SHAP.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Global research of artificial intelligence in strabismus: a bibliometric analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
- Childhood cerebral visual impairment subtype classification based on an extensive versus a limited test battery.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2023Article
- Article
- Intervention to Reduce Anxiety Pre- and Post-Eye Surgery in Pediatric Patients in South Korea: A Preliminary Quasi-Experimental Study.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Vision screening in newborns and early childhood.BMC pediatrics · 2021Review
- Development of a core outcome set for amblyopia, strabismus and ocular motility disorders: a review to identify outcome measures.BMC ophthalmology · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStrabismus (misalignment of the eyes) is a risk factor for impaired visual development both of visual acuity and of stereopsis. Detection of strabismus in the community by non-expert examiners may be performed using a number of different index tests that include direct measures of misalignment (corneal or fundus reflex tests), or indirect measures such as stereopsis and visual acuity. The reference test to detect strabismus by trained professionals is the cover‒uncover test.
objectivesTo assess and compare the accuracy of tests, alone or in combination, for detection of strabismus in children aged 1 to 6 years, in a community setting by non-expert screeners or primary care professionals to inform healthcare commissioners setting up childhood screening programmes.Secondary objectives were to investigate sources of heterogeneity of diagnostic accuracy. SEARCH
methodsWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 12) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) in the Cochrane Library, the Health Technology Assessment Database (HTAD) in the Cochrane Library (2016, Issue 4), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 5 January 2017), Embase Ovid (1947 to 5 January 2017), CINAHL (January 1937 to 5 January 2017), Web of Science Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (CPCI-S) (January 1990 to 5 January 2017), BIOSIS Previews (January 1969 to 5 January 2017), MEDION (to 18 August 2014), the Aggressive Research Intelligence Facility database (ARIF) (to 5 January 2017), the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch); searched 5 January 2017, ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov); searched 5 January 2017 and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en); searched 5 January 2017. We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. In addition, orthoptic journals and conference proceedings without electronic listings were searched. SELECTION CRITERIA: All prospective or retrospective population-based test accuracy studies of consecutive participants were included. Studies compared a single or combination of index tests with the reference test. Only those studies with sufficient data for analysis were included specifically to calculate sensitivity and specificity and determine diagnostic accuracy.Participants were aged 1 to 6 years. Studies reporting participants outside this range were included if subgroup data were available.Permitted settings included population-based vision screening programmes or opportunistic screening programmes, such as those performed in schools. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. In brief, two review authors independently assessed titles and abstracts for eligibility and extracted the data, with a third senior author resolving any disagreement. We analysed data primarily for specificity and sensitivity. MAIN
resultsOne study from a total of 1236 papers, abstracts and trials was eligible for inclusion with a total number of participants of 335 of which 271 completed both the screening test and the gold standard test. The screening test using an automated photoscreener had a sensitivity of 0.46 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.19 to 0.75) and specificity of 0.97 (CI 0.94 to 0.99). The overall number affected by strabismus was low at 13 (4.8%). AUTHORS'
conclusionsThere is very limited data in the literature to ascertain the accuracy of tests for detecting strabismus in the community as performed by non-expert screeners. A large prospective study to compare methods would be required to determine which tests have the greatest accuracy.
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.