ArticleThe British and Irish orthoptic journal2019
Visual Profile of Children who Passed or Failed the UK School Vision Screening Protocol.
Article in The British and Irish orthoptic journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Binocular Vision Anomalies in Scotland at Age 3.5-5.5 Years: An Epidemiological Study.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026Article
- Increasing myopia in Scotland at age of 3.5-5.5 years: A retrospective epidemiological study.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2025Article
- Best Vitelliform Macular Dystrophy Natural History Study Report 1: Clinical Features and Genetic Findings.Ophthalmology · 2024Observational
- Prevalence of refractive errors in children of Puerto Rico.International journal of ophthalmology · 2023Article
- Association between Socioeconomic Status and Vision Screening Outcomes among Preschool Children in Klang Valley, Malaysia: A Cross-Sectional Study.The Malaysian journal of medical sciences : MJMS · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe applied the National Screening Committee vision screening protocol [pass criterion monocular acuity ≤ 0.2 LogMAR in both eyes(BE)] to children four to five years old to investigate the visual profile of children who passed/failed. Previous studies have only evaluated those failing. The aim was to derive false positive and negative values, specificity/sensitivity of the vision screening protocol for detecting significant visual defects (strabismus and/or significant refractive error) and the utility of a 'plus blur test' in identifying hyperopia.
methodsParticipants included 294 children (5.2 ± 0.4 yrs). In addition to the vision screening protocol (monocular acuity-3 m crowded Keeler LogMAR letters), acuities were recorded through +2.50D and +4.00D lenses and ocular alignment and cycloplegic refractive error were assessed. Using acuity measures, participants were classed as passing/failing the screening protocol. Each participant was also classed as having a strabismus and/or significant refractive error (hyperopia ≥ +4.00DS; myopia ≤ -0.50DS; astigmatism ≤ -1.50DC; anisometropia ≥ +1.50DS) or no significant visual defects.
resultsOf the 284 children who completed all tests, 27.8% failed to achieve 0.2 LogMAR in BE. The acuity pass/fail criterion had a sensitivity of 70.4% and specificity of 82.2% for detecting strabismus and/or significant refractive error. Of those who failed, 51.9% (n = 41/79) had no strabismus and/or significant refractive error (false positives). Of those who passed, 7.8% (n = 16/205) had visual defects (false negatives). The 'plus blur tests' improved sensitivity in detecting significant refractive error (+2.50D & +4.00D 90.7%) but significantly reduced specificity (+2.50D = 65.2%; +4.00D = 60.9%).
conclusionsSchool-entry vision screening is reasonably sensitive and specific for detecting strabismus and/or significant refractive error. Most children with visions poorer than 0.2 LogMAR need refractive intervention, and the majority of the remainder are likely false positives for significant visual defects. One in 13 children who pass have either strabismus and/or significant refractive error (7.8%). The inclusion of a 'plus blur test' was not a useful addition to the vision screening protocol.
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.