ArticleBMJ open ophthalmology2021
Amblyopia screening effectiveness at 3-4 years old: a cohort study.
Article in BMJ open ophthalmology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Parental Compliance with Preschool Vision Screening Test.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Effect of curfew from the COVID-19 pandemic on amblyopia treatment in children in Saudi Arabia.SAGE open medicine · 2023Article
- National survey of paediatric vision screening programs across Canada: Identifying major gaps and call to action.Paediatrics & child health · 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
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo study the effectiveness of amblyopia screening at ages 3-4. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: From a population with no previous screening, a cohort of 2300 children with 3-4 years old attending school (91% of children this age attend school in Portugal), were submitted to a complete ophthalmological evaluation. Amblyopia was diagnosed, treated and followed. Amblyopia prevalence, treatment effectiveness, absolute risk reduction (ARR), number needed to screen (NNS) and relative risk reduction (RRR) were estimated.
resultsPast/present history of amblyopia was higher than 3.1%-4.2%, depending on amblyopia definition normatives. Screening at age 3-4, had estimated ARR=2.09% (95% CI 1.50% to 2.68%) with a reduced risk of amblyopia in adulthood of 87% (RRR). NNS was 47.8 (95% CI 37.3 to 66.7). Treatment effectiveness of new diagnosis was 88% (83% if we include children already followed). 91% of new amblyopia diagnoses were refractive (of which 100% surpassed amblyopia Multi-Ethnic Pediatric Eye Disease Study criteria after treatment), while most strabismic amblyopias were already treated or undertreatment. Only 30% of children with refractive amblyopia risk factors that were not followed by an ophthalmologist, ended up having amblyopia at age 3-4. Eye patch was needed equally in new-diagnosis versus treated-earlier refractive amblyopia.
conclusionsScreening amblyopia in a whole-population setting at age 3-4 is highly effective. For each 48 children screened at age 3-4, one amblyopia is estimated to be prevented in the future (NNS). Screening earlier may lead to overdiagnosis and overtreatments: Treating all new diagnosis before age 3-4 would have a maximal difference in ARR of 0.3%, with the possible burden of as much as 70% children being unnecessary treated before age 3-4.Involving primary care, with policies for timely referral of suspicious/high-risk preverbal children, plus whole screening at age 3-4 seems a rational/effective way of controlling amblyopia.
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.