SynthesisIndian journal of ophthalmology2021
Red reflex test screening for neonates: A systematic review and meta analysis.
Synthesis in Indian journal of ophthalmology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Diagnostic accuracy of machine learning approaches to identify psoriatic arthritis: a meta-analysis.Clinical and experimental medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Universal newborn eye screening: a systematic review of the literature and review of international guidelines.Journal of global health · 2022Pooled it
- Article
- Improving completion of the red reflex examination at neonatal intensive care unit discharge: a practice improvement initiative and multisite planned experiment.BMJ open quality · 2025Article
- Management of anophthalmia, microphthalmia and coloboma in the newborn, shared care between neonatologist and ophthalmologist: a literature review.Italian journal of pediatrics · 2025Review
- Response to comment on: Red reflex test screening for neonates: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2022Article
- Comment on: Red reflex test screening for neonates: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2022Article
- The Red Reflex Test - Shadow conceals, light reveals.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Red reflex test (RRT) screening is yet to be a part of the neonate's normal examination before discharge from hospital in a majority of low- and middle-income countries. The purpose was this review was to systematically evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of RRT for the detection of ocular abnormalities in newborns. PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane database of systematic reviews were the data sources. Quality of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) was utilized for quality assessment of bias and applicability. Random effects models were used to summarize sensitivities, specificities, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and respective confidence intervals (CI). The pooled sensitivity, calculated from the meta analysis of 11 studies, was 23% (95% CI: 21-24%) and pooled specificity was 98% (95% CI: 98-98%). The PLR was 32.52 (95% CI: 7.89-134.15), NLR was less than 1 (0.69 [95% CI: 0.55-0.88]), and DOR calculated was 138.48 (95% CI: 23.85-803.97). The area under the curve (AUC) and Q* index for RRT were 0.98 ± 0.02 and 0.95 ± 0.045, respectively. The results of our study justify the conclusion that RRT is a highly sensitive and specific test for the detection of anterior segment abnormalities.
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.