ArticleBMC medical education2019
Paediatric vision screening by non-healthcare volunteers: evidence based practices.
Article in BMC medical education, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pediatric Eye Evaluations Preferred Practice Pattern.Ophthalmology · 2023Guideline
- Recommendations for the optimization of student led free vision screening programs.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- Inter-Rater Reliability of EyeSpy Mobile for Pediatric Visual Acuity Assessments by Parent Volunteers.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2024Article
- Vision Screening and Detection of Ocular Abnormalities in School Children by Teachers in Jordan.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2024Article
- Article
- National survey of paediatric vision screening programs across Canada: Identifying major gaps and call to action.Paediatrics & child health · 2021Article
- Analysis of suspected visual impairment risks based on objective refraction in 3-year-old children.Japanese journal of ophthalmology · 2021Article
- Teleophthalmology: Evaluation of Phone-based Visual Acuity in a Pediatric Population.American journal of ophthalmology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe purpose of this study was to test the sensitivity and specificity of eight undergraduate volunteer examiners conducting vision screening tests in a community setting, in order to determine if non-eye care professionals were able to be trained to an appropriate level of skill.
methodsEight undergraduate volunteer examiners were trained to conduct vision screening tests to address a gap in pediatric community eye care. Phase I of the study was implemented in the pediatric ophthalmology clinic, and phase II was conducted in nine local schools. Phase I consisted of 40 h of training for each volunteer regarding specific vision tests. Phase II consisted of screening children at nine local schools.
resultsA total of 690 children from nine local schools were screened by both the volunteer examiners and the optometrist during the course of this study. Volunteer examiners had a screening sensitivity of 0.80 (95%CI 0.66-0.90) and screening specificity of 0.75 (95%CI 0.71-0.78) when compared to the study optometrist. The overall accuracy of volunteer examiners was 75%. The resulting positive likelihood ratio was 3.24 (95%CI 2.6-3.9), indicating that a child with vision impairment was 3.2 times more likely to fail the vision test performed by the volunteer examiners compared to a child with no vision impairment.
conclusionsNon-healthcare professionals can be trained to an acceptable degree of accuracy to perform vision screening tests on children, which may assist in mitigating existing gaps in paediatric eye care.
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.