Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33257800›Full record

SynthesisEye (London, England)2021

Scope and costs of autorefraction and photoscreening for childhood amblyopia-a systematic narrative review in relation to the EUSCREEN project data.

Anna M Horwood, Helen J Griffiths, Jill Carlton, Paolo Mazzone, Arinder Channa, Mandy Nordmann, Huibert J Simonsz, EUSCREEN Foundation

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Eye (London, England), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. 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) · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. 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) · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Anna M HorwoodUniversity of Reading, Reading, UK. a.m.horwood@reading.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0886-9686
Helen J GriffithsUniversity of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Jill CarltonUniversity of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9373-7663
Paolo MazzoneUniversity of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Arinder ChannaRoyal Berkshire Hospital, Reading, UK.
Mandy NordmannErasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Huibert J SimonszErasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
EUSCREEN Foundation
University of Sheffield · GBErasmus University Rotterdam · NLRoyal Berkshire Hospital · GB

Funding

EC | Horizon 2020 Framework Programme (EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation H2020) 733352
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAmblyopia screening can target reduced visual acuity (VA), its refractive risk factors, or both. VA testing is imprecise under 4 years of age, so automated risk-factor photoscreening appears an attractive option. This review considers photoscreening used in community services, focusing on costs, cost-effectiveness and scope of use, compared with EUSCREEN project Country Reports describing how photo- and automated screening is used internationally.

methodsA systematic narrative review was carried out of all English language photoscreening literature to September 10th 2018, using publicly available search terms. Where costs were considered, a CASP economic evaluation checklist was used to assess data quality.

resultsOf 370 abstracts reviewed, 55 reported large-scale community photoscreening projects. Five addressed cost-effectiveness specifically, without original data. Photoscreening was a stand-alone, single, test event in 71% of projects. In contrast, 25 of 45 EUSCREEN Country Reports showed that if adopted, photoscreening often supplements other tests in established programmes and is rarely used as a stand-alone test. Reported costs varied widely and evidence of cost-effectiveness was sparse in the literature, or in international practice. Only eight (13%) papers compared the diagnostic accuracy or cost-effectiveness of photoscreening and VA testing, and when they did, cost-effectiveness of photoscreening compared unfavourably. DISCUSSION: Evidence that photoscreening reduces amblyopia or strabismus prevalence or improves overall outcomes is weak, as is evidence of cost-effectiveness, compared to later VA screening. Currently, the most cost-effective option seems to be a later, expert VA screening with the opportunity for a re-test before referral.

Indexed as

AmblyopiaStrabismusVision ScreeningChildCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansVision Disorders

Identifiers

PMID33257800
PMCPMC8026636
OpenAlexW3109128813

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.