Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34755325›Full record

SynthesisCanadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique2022

Economic evaluations of vision screening to detect amblyopia and refractive errors in children: a systematic review.

Afua O Asare, Agnes M F Wong, Daphne Maurer, Yalinie Kulandaivelu, Natasha Saunders, Wendy J Ungar

Open access · bronzeAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Afua O AsareInstitute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Agnes M F WongInstitute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Daphne MaurerInstitute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Yalinie KulandaiveluInstitute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Natasha SaundersInstitute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Wendy J UngarInstitute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. wendy.ungar@sickkids.ca.ORCID 0000-0002-0762-0101
University of Toronto · CA

Funding

CIHR
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo synthesize and appraise economic evaluations of vision screening to detect vision impairment in children.

methodsLiterature searches were conducted on seven electronic databases, grey literature, and websites of agencies conducting health technology assessments. Studies were included if they (1) were full, comparative economic evaluations that used cost-utility, cost-benefit, cost-effectiveness, cost-consequence, or cost-analysis methods; (2) described screening services designed to detect amblyopia, strabismus, or uncorrected refractive errors in children under 6 years of age; and (3) published after 1994. High-quality studies were synthesized descriptively. Currencies were reported in 2019 Canadian dollars. Quality was assessed with the Pediatric Quality Appraisal Questionnaire (PQAQ).

resultsVision screening services were conducted by paid staff, volunteers, or health care professionals in schools or clinics. Thirteen studies were published from five countries: China (n = 1), United States (n = 4), United Kingdom (n = 1), Canada (n = 1), and Germany (n = 6). Analytical techniques included cost-utility/cost-effectiveness combination (n = 2), cost-effectiveness analysis (n = 7), cost-utility analysis (n = 1), cost-benefit analysis (n = 1), cost-consequence analysis (n = 1), and cost analysis (n = 1). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranged from C$1,056 to C$151,274 per additional case detected/prevented and from C$9,429 to C$30,254,703 per additional QALY gained, depending on the type of screening service and comparator. Six studies were determined to be of high quality.

conclusionVision screening to detect amblyopia for young children may be cost-effective compared with no screening if amblyopia reduced quality of life. Studies varied significantly in the type of screening services and comparators used. Methodological limitations were common. Future studies would be aided immensely by prospective studies on the impact of amblyopia on the health-related quality of life of young children and guidelines on the effective conduct of vision screening.

Indexed as

AmblyopiaRefractive ErrorsVision ScreeningCanadaChildChild, PreschoolCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansProspective StudiesQuality of LifeUnited StatesAmblyopiaEconomic evaluationEye examsKindergartenPediatricsPreschoolRefractive errorsSchool screeningSystematic reviewVision impairmentVision screening

Identifiers

PMID34755325
PMCPMC8577413
OpenAlexW3213169291

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.