Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34856946›Full record

ArticleBMC ophthalmology2021

Pinhole does not increase screening accuracy of detecting decreased best corrected visual acuity in schoolchildren.

Weiwei Chen, Jing Fu, Ali Sun, Lei Li, Yunyun Sun, Zhaojun Meng

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC ophthalmology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 34% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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.

Weiwei ChenBeijing Tongren Eye Center, Beijing Tongren Hospital, Capital Medical University; Beijing Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences Key Laboratory, No.1 Dong Jiao Min Xiang, Beijing, 100730, China.
Jing FuBeijing Tongren Eye Center, Beijing Tongren Hospital, Capital Medical University; Beijing Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences Key Laboratory, No.1 Dong Jiao Min Xiang, Beijing, 100730, China. fu_jing@126.com.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2939-9479
Ali SunBeijing Tongren Eye Center, Beijing Tongren Hospital, Capital Medical University; Beijing Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences Key Laboratory, No.1 Dong Jiao Min Xiang, Beijing, 100730, China.
Lei LiBeijing Tongren Eye Center, Beijing Tongren Hospital, Capital Medical University; Beijing Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences Key Laboratory, No.1 Dong Jiao Min Xiang, Beijing, 100730, China.
Yunyun SunBeijing Tongren Eye Center, Beijing Tongren Hospital, Capital Medical University; Beijing Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences Key Laboratory, No.1 Dong Jiao Min Xiang, Beijing, 100730, China.
Zhaojun MengBeijing Tongren Eye Center, Beijing Tongren Hospital, Capital Medical University; Beijing Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences Key Laboratory, No.1 Dong Jiao Min Xiang, Beijing, 100730, China.
Beijing Tongren Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDecreased best corrected visual acuity among children should be treated early in life, and vision screening in schoolchildren is an efficient and feasible selection for developing countries. Thus, the screening accuracy of different visual acuity tests is the key point for making vision screening strategies. The present study aims to explore the screening accuracy of uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA) and pin-hole corrected visual acuity (PCVA) using different vision chart in the detection of decreased best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) among schoolchildren.

methodsGrade one primary schoolchildren in urban Lhasa with data of UCVA using tumbling E chart (UCVAE), PCVA using tumbling E chart (PCVAE), UCVA using Lea Symbols chart (UCVAL), PCVA using Lea Symbols chart (PCVAL) and BCVA using Lea Symbols chart were reviewed. Decreased BCVA was defined as BCVA≤20/32(≥0.2 logMAR). Difference, reliability, and diagnostic parameters in the detection of decreased BCVA of different visual acuity results were analyzed.

resultsOverall, 1672 children aged 6.58 ± 0.44 years fulfilling the criteria. The prevalence of decreased BCVA was 6.8%. Although no significant differences were found between UCVAE vs UCVAL (p = .84, paired t-test) as well as PCVAE vs PCVAL (p = .24), the ICC between them was low (0.68 and 0.57, respectively). The average difference between BCVA and UCVAE, UCVAL, PCVAE, PCVAL was logMAR -0.08 (- 0.37, 0.21), - 0.08 (- 0.29, 0.17), - 0.05 (- 0.30, 0.19), - 0.06 (- 0.23, 0.12) using Bland-Altman method. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of UCVAE, PCVAE, UCVAL, PCVAL for the detection of decreased BCVA was 0.78 (0.73, 0.84), 0.76 (0.71, 0.82), 0.95 (0.94, 0.96), 0.93 (0.91, 0.95), respectively.

conclusionPinhole does not increase the screening accuracy of detecting decreased BCVA in grade one primary schoolchildren. Visual acuity test using Lea Symbols is more efficient than Tumbling E in the screening of that age.

trial registrationData were maily from the Lhasa Childhood Eye Study which has finished the clinical registration on ( ChiCTR1900026693 ).

Indexed as

Vision ScreeningVision TestsChildHumansPrevalenceReproducibility of ResultsROC CurveVisual AcuityDecreased best-corrected visual acuitySchoolchildrenSensitivitySpecificityVision screening

Identifiers

PMID34856946
PMCPMC8638540
OpenAlexW3215263108

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.