ArticleIranian journal of public health2021
Applicability of the Smart Vision Screening Instrument among Chinese Primary School Students.
Article in Iranian journal of public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Validity and Reliability of Vis-Screen Application: A Smartphone-Based Distance Vision Testing for Visual Impairment and Blindness Vision Screening.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA smart vision screening instrument was applied for screening low eyesight in primary school students in Wuhan, China. We aimed to compare the differences in test results between this instrument and lamp-box visual acuity charts, assess the validity of the screening results, and perform a preliminary comparison of the cost inputs of the two approaches.
methodsIn this cross-sectional study conducted in Wuhan, China in 2017, vision tests were performed on the same day among enrolled primary school students by using the two approaches. The
resultsIn total, 1001 schoolchildren were included, and the prevalence of low eyesight was 21.18% (95% CI: 18.71-23.87%). The test results of the two approaches were not statistically different (
conclusionThe test result of the instrument is reliable, and using it to conduct screening is cost-saving. Therefore, it might be popularized for vision monitoring in schoolchildren.
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.