Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36828959›Full record

SynthesisEye (London, England)2023

Home-based screening tools for amblyopia: a systematic review.

Samantha Siaw Zhen Sii, Chung Shen Chean, Helen Kuht, Catey Bunce, Mervyn G Thomas, Sohaib R Rufai

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Eye (London, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Binocular Vision Anomalies: An Update on Prevalence, Impact, Technological and Treatment Developments and Current Challenges.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026
    Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. 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 4 institutions in 1 country.

Samantha Siaw Zhen SiiDepartment of Ophthalmology, University Hospitals of Derby and Burton, Derby, UK.
Chung Shen CheanUniversity of Leicester Ulverscroft Eye Unit, Leicester Royal Infirmary, Leicester, UK.
Helen KuhtUniversity of Leicester Ulverscroft Eye Unit, Leicester Royal Infirmary, Leicester, UK.
Catey BunceThe Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0935-3713
Mervyn G ThomasUniversity of Leicester Ulverscroft Eye Unit, Leicester Royal Infirmary, Leicester, UK. mt350@leicester.ac.uk.
Sohaib R RufaiUniversity of Leicester Ulverscroft Eye Unit, Leicester Royal Infirmary, Leicester, UK. Sohaib.Rufai@nhs.net.ORCID 0000-0001-8134-6393
University of Leicester · GBGreat Ormond Street Hospital · GBRoyal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

DH | National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) CL-2017-11-003
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Amblyopia is an important public health concern. While home-based screening may present an effective solution, this has not been rigorously assessed in a systematic review. A systematic review was performed using Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, and Clinicaltrials.gov. All studies reporting the diagnostic accuracy of home-based screening tools for amblyopia among children were included. Studies involving orthoptist or ophthalmologist-led screening and adult subjects were excluded. The main outcome measure was the diagnostic accuracy expressed as sensitivity and specificity. Among 3670 studies identified, 28 were eligible for inclusion in our systematic review. The age range of patients were less than 1 month to 16 years old. 7 studies used internet-based tools, 16 used smartphone/tablet applications, 3 used digital cameras, and 3 used home-based questionnaires and visual acuity tools. All studies included a reference standard except one, which was a longitudinal study. 21 studies had full ophthalmological examination whilst 6 studies had validated visual acuity measurement tools as gold standards. Of the 27 studies which compared against a reference test, only 25 studies reported sensitivity and specificity values. Using the QUADAS-2 tool, 50% of studies were deemed to have applicability concern due to patient selection from tertiary centres and unclear methods for recruitment. There is a need to improve the quality of diagnostic accuracy studies, standardise thresholds for detecting amblyopia, and ensure consistent reporting of results. Further research is needed to evaluate the suitability of these tools for amblyopia screening.

Indexed as

AmblyopiaAdultChildHumansInfantLongitudinal StudiesPhysical ExaminationSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID36828959
PMCPMC9951845
OpenAlexW4321783964

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.