ArticleInternational health2022
Assessing the prevalence of refractive errors and accuracy of vision screening by schoolteachers in Liberia.
Article in International health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic Accuracy of Teacher-Administered School Vision Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026Pooled it
- Effectiveness of school vision screening by teachers - a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC public health · 2026Pooled it
- Priorities in school eye health in low and middle-income countries a scoping review.Eye (London, England) · 2024Article
- Vision Screening and Detection of Ocular Abnormalities in School Children by Teachers in Jordan.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEvidence indicates that school-based vision screening by trained teachers is an effective way of identifying and addressing potential vision problems in schoolchildren. However, inconsistencies have been reported in both the testing methods and accuracy of the screeners. This study assessed the prevalence of refractive errors and accuracy of screening by teachers in Grand Kru County, Liberia.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective analysis of data from four schools where, in February 2019, children were screened for refractive errors by trained teachers and then re-examined by ophthalmic technicians. One row of five optotypes of the Snellen 6/9 (0.2 logMar) scale (tumbling E chart) was used at a distance of 3 m. The prevalence of visual impairment and associations with sex, age and school were explored. Sensitivity, specificity and predictive values were calculated.
resultsData were available for 823 of 1095 eligible children with a mean age of 13.7 y (range 5-18) and male:female ratio of 1:0.8. Poor vision was identified in 24 (2.9%) children with no differences by either sex or age but small differences by school. Screening by teachers had a sensitivity of 0.25 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.077 to 0.423) and a specificity of 0.996 (95% CI 0.992 to 1.000). Positive and negative predictive values were 0.667 (95% CI 0.359 to 0.975) and 0.978 (95% CI 0.968 to 0.988), respectively. The results were influenced by a high number of misclassifications in one of the four schools.
conclusionsTeachers can be trained to conduct vision screening tests on schoolchildren to an acceptable level of accuracy, but strong monitoring and quality assurance systems should be built into screening programmes from the onset. In settings like Liberia, where many children do not attend school regularly, screening programmes should extend to community platforms to reach children out of school.
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.