ArticleJournal of medical screening2023
Availability of data for cost-effectiveness comparison of child vision and hearing screening programmes.
Article in Journal of medical screening, 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.
- Making a Difference from Day One: The Urgent Need for Universal Neonatal Hearing Screening.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Implementation of Newborn Hearing Screening in Albania.International journal of neonatal screening · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveFor cost-effectiveness comparison of child vision and hearing screening programmes, methods and data should be available. We assessed the current state of data collection and its availability in Europe.
methodsThe EUSCREEN Questionnaire, conducted in 2017-2018, assessed paediatric vision and hearing screening programmes in 45 countries in Europe. For the current study, its items on data collection, monitoring and evaluation, and six of eleven items essential for cost-effectiveness analysis: prevalence, sensitivity, specificity, coverage, attendance and loss to follow-up, were reappraised with an additional questionnaire.
resultsThe practice of data collection in vision screening was reported in 36% (N = 42) of countries and in hearing screening in 81% (N = 43); collected data were published in 12% and 35%, respectively. Procedures for quality assurance in vision screening were reported in 19% and in hearing screening in 26%, research of screening effectiveness in 43% and 47%, whereas cost-effectiveness analysis was performed in 12% for both. Data on prevalence of amblyopia were reported in 40% and of hearing loss in 77%, on sensitivity of screening tests in 17% and 14%, on their specificity in 19% and 21%, on coverage of screening in 40% and 84%, on attendance in 21% and 37%, and on loss to follow-up in 12% and 40%, respectively.
conclusionsData collection is insufficient in hearing screening and even more so in vision screening: data essential for cost-effectiveness comparison could not be reported from most countries. When collection takes place, this is mostly at a local level for quality assurance or accountability, and data are often not accessible. The resulting inability to compare cost-effectiveness among screening programmes perpetuates their diversity and inefficiency.
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.