ArticleJapanese journal of ophthalmology2021
Effectiveness of the Spot Vision Screener in screening 3-year-old children with potential amblyopia in Japan.
Article in Japanese journal of ophthalmology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Practical Comparison of a Newly Developed Software-Based Visual Acuity Test and Photoscreening in Japanese Preschool Children.Vision (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Thirty-year changes in burden for refraction disorders in China, Japan, Korea and Singapore: a jointly prevention perspective analysis.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Development of Automated Visual Acuity Measurement Using a Calibration-Free Eye-Tracking System.Cureus · 2024Article
- Measurement Accuracy When Using Spot Vision Screener With or Without Cycloplegia in Young Adults.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2023Article
- Photorefraction with Spot Vision Screener versus Visual Acuity Testing as Community-Based Preschool Vision Screening at the Age of 3.5 Years in Japan.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Birth weight and refractive state measured by Spot Vision Screener in children aged 40 months.BMJ open ophthalmology · 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.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study was to compare the efficiency of conventional screening and of the Spot™ Vision Screener (SVS)-based screening in detecting potential cases of amblyopia during the Visual examination in Three-Year-Old Health Screening Program (VTYOS), that need to be referred for comprehensive examination. STUDY
designPopulation-based cross-sectional study
methodsThis study introduced the SVS-based test to the VTYOS (which includes primary, secondary, and comprehensive examinations) of Sagae, Yamagata Prefecture, Japan. Children aged 3 years 6 months scheduled to undergo the secondary examination were subjected to both the SVS-based (evaluation of refractive error and eye alignment) and conventional screening test (questionnaire and visual acuity evaluation). Success rates, proportion of children who needed a comprehensive examination, rates of actual comprehensive examinations, and positive predictive value were determined and compared between conventional screening and SVS-based screening.
resultsThere were 294 participants; the rate of success of SVS-based screening (99.7%) was higher than conventional screening (89.5%, p < 0.01). The proportion of participants found to need a comprehensive examination according to SVS-based findings (7.5%) was lower than that according to conventional screening-based findings (23.5%, p < 0.01). The positive predictive value of the SVS-based screening test (75.0%) was higher than that of the conventional screening test (31.6%, p < 0.01). SVS-based screening detected 2 cases of amblyopia in 225 cases that passed conventional screening.
conclusionThe VTYOS should ideally add SVS-based screening to conventional screening.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33646435What 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.