ArticleTurkish journal of ophthalmology2019
Approach of Family Physicians to Pediatric Eye Screening in Diyarbakır
Article in Turkish journal of ophthalmology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Outcomes of Eye Examination and Vision Screening in Term Infants Presenting to a Tertiary Hospital in Türkiye.Turkish journal of ophthalmology · 2025Article
- The effect of education seminars on pediatric vision screening in the primary care settings.International ophthalmology · 2022Article
- Evaluation of the red reflex: An overview for the pediatrician.World journal of methodology · 2021Article
- 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
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: In Turkey, preventive medicine services are the responsibility of family physicians and vision screening is a key component of this responsibility. In this study, we aimed to investigate the approach of family physicians to vision screening in infants and children. Materials and Methods: Data were collected using a 16-item questionnaire administered to 100 family physicians working in the center and provinces of Diyarbakır. Results: The results indicated that 88 (88%) physicians declared knowing what the red reflex test was, while 12 physicians declared that they had never heard of it. Only 16 (16%) physicians performed the test routinely and 36 (36%) physicians performed it only in suspicious cases. Ten (10%) physicians indicated that they did not refer the patients to an ophthalmologist even though they did not perform the red reflex test. Moreover, 5 (5%) physicians did not have an ophthalmoscope and 12 (12%) physicians reported not knowing how to use an ophthalmoscope. Forty (40%) of the physicians measured preschool visual acuity at least once. Sixty-six (66%) physicians referred younger children who could not express their vision problems to an ophthalmologist. Four (4%) physicians declared that they would delay surgery in children with strabismus until they were old enough for surgery. Ninety-three (93%) physicians suggested that educational seminars about vision screening would be beneficial. Conclusion: Educational seminars about vision screening may have favorable outcomes. The medical devices in family medicine centers should be improved. Vision screening can be added to the negative performance-based compensation system in order to increase physicians’ attention to vision screening. To implement detailed eye screening programs like those in developed countries, an infrastructure should be established for this screening program.
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.