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.
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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Home-based screening tools for amblyopia: a systematic review.Eye (London, England) · 2023Pooled it
- "Smart Optometry" phone-based application as a visual acuity testing tool among pediatric population.Saudi medical journal · 2022Trial
- 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
- Integrating Multi-Task Eye Tracking and Interpretable Machine Learning for High-Accuracy Screening of Amblyopia in Pediatric Populations.Journal of eye movement research · 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
- Comparison of the PlusoptiX A16 and vision screener V100.Frontiers in ophthalmology · 2024Article
- Artificial intelligence-based screening for amblyopia and its risk factors: comparison with four classic stereovision tests.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
- The cost-effectiveness of different visual acuity screening strategies in three European countries: A microsimulation study.Preventive medicine reports · 2022Article
- A Comprehensive Overview of Vision Screening Programmes across 46 Countries.The British and Irish orthoptic journal · 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
8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
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
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.