ArticleClinical & experimental optometry2018
Vision screening at two years does not reduce the prevalence of reduced vision at four and a half years of age.
Article in Clinical & experimental optometry, 2018. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Scope and costs of autorefraction and photoscreening for childhood amblyopia-a systematic narrative review in relation to the EUSCREEN project data.Eye (London, England) · 2021Pooled it
- The approach to the screening for visual impairment of children and adolescents by family medicine physicians in the Eastern Region of Saudi Arabia.Journal of family & community medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThere is currently insufficient evidence to recommend vision screening for children < 36 months of age. This study assessed the effect of comprehensive vision screening, as well as the sensitivity of age-appropriate vision tests, at two years of age on habitual visual acuity at 4.5 years of age.
methodsChildren born at risk of neonatal hypoglycaemia (n = 477) underwent vision assessment at 54 ± 2 months of age including measurement of monocular and binocular habitual visual acuity, assessment of binocularity and stereopsis. Of these children, 355 (74.4 per cent) had also received vision screening at two years of age (mean age = 24± 1 months), while 122 were not screened.
resultsEighty (16.8 per cent) children were classified as having reduced vision at 4.5 years of age, but the prevalence of reduced vision did not differ between children who had previously been screened at two years of age and those who had not (15.5 per cent versus 20.5 per cent, p = 0.153). However, children with reduced vision at 4.5 years of age were more likely to have had visual abnormalities requiring referral detected at two years of age (p = 0.02). Visual acuity and mean spherical equivalent autorefraction measurements were also worse (higher values) in two-year-old children who were later classified with reduced habitual visual acuity (p = 0.031 and p = 0.001, respectively). Nevertheless, unaided binocular visual acuity, non-cycloplegic refractive error, and stereopsis at two years all showed poor sensitivity and specificity for predicting visual outcomes at 4.5 years of age.
conclusionOur findings do not support the adoption of early vision screening in children as current vision tests suitable for use with two-year-old children have poor sensitivity for predicting mild-moderate habitual vision impairment at 4.5 years of age.
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.