ArticleOphthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists)2023
Refractive prescribing for preschool children by optometrists in England.
Article in Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Factors influencing refractive status distribution and amblyopia in preschool children with low vision.American journal of translational research · 2026Article
- Refractive prescribing for preschool children by optometrists in England.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 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
purposeCorrection of refractive error in children is important for visual and educational development. The aim of this questionnaire-based study was to explore paediatric refractive correction by optometrists in England.
methodsAn online questionnaire was piloted and distributed to optometrists in England. The questionnaire asked about respondents' characteristics (such as type of practice), management of refractive error in 1- and 3-year-old children and sources of information used as a basis for decisions on prescribing refractive error in children.
resultsTwo hundred and ninety-three questionnaires were returned, although only 139 (47%) were fully completed. In an average month, about half of respondents examined no children between 0 and 2 years of age, and about half examined no more than five children aged 3-4 years. A significant proportion indicated they would refer children aged 1 or 3 years with refractive error and no other signs or symptoms into the hospital eye service. Almost a quarter would prescribe in full or in part an isometropic refractive correction of +2.00 D for a 3-year-old (within the normal range) with no other signs or symptoms, suggesting a degree of unnecessary prescribing. Almost all would act in cases of clinically significant refractive error. Respondents made similar use of their colleagues, optometric or postgraduate/continuing education, professional guidance and peer-reviewed research as sources of evidence on which to base decisions about prescribing for paediatric refractive errors. Most reported 'never' or 'rarely' using Cochrane reviews.
conclusionsThese results suggest optometrists often defer management of paediatric refractive error to the hospital eye service, with implications in terms of underutilisation of community optometric expertise and burden on the National Health Service. In some cases, the results indicate a mismatch between respondents' reported management and existing guidance/guidelines on paediatric prescribing.
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.