ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2024
Capabilities and Limitations of Student-Led Free Vision Screening Programs in the United States.
Article in Translational vision science & technology, 2024. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Validation of a Novel Low-Cost Glaucoma Risk Calculator for Community-Based Screening in High-Risk Populations.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Article
- Recommendations for the optimization of student led free vision screening programs.BMC medical education · 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
12 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: The Consortium of Student-Led Eye Clinics (CSLEC), founded in 2021, administered a comprehensive survey to document the types of services, most common diagnoses, and follow-up care protocols offered by student-led free vision screening programs (SLFVSP) in the United States. Methods: An 81-question institutional review board (IRB)-approved survey was administered to student-led vision screening eye clinics from October 1, 2022 to February 24, 2023. Results: Sixteen SLFVSPs were included in the final analysis, of which 81% (n = 13) conducted variations of fundoscopic examinations and 75% (n = 12) measured intraocular pressure. Cataracts and diabetic retinopathy were reported as the most frequent diagnoses by the majority of SLFVSPs (n = 9, 56%); non-mobile SLFVSPs more commonly reported cataract as a frequent diagnosis (P < 0.05). Most patients screened at participating programs were uninsured or met federal poverty guidelines. Prescription glasses were offered by 56% of the programs (n = 9). SLFVSPs that directly scheduled follow-up appointments reported higher attendance rates (66.5%) than those that only sent referrals (20%). Transportation was the most cited barrier for follow-up appointment attendance. Conclusions: SLFVSPs, one community vision screening initiative subtype, vary significantly in scope and capabilities of identifying vision threatening disease. The follow-up infrastructure is not uniformly robust and represents a key target for improving care delivery to at-risk populations. Translational Relevance: The CSLEC aims to develop a consensus-based standardization for the scope of screening services, offer guidelines for diagnostic criteria, promote real-time data stewardship, and identify means to improve follow-up care mechanisms in member communities.
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.