ArticleInternational journal of ophthalmology2024
Reliability of a computerized system for strabismus screening.
Article in International journal of ophthalmology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo evaluate the reliability of Photo-Hirschberg screening for global strabismus performed by non-specialized personnel.
methodsParticipants at three sites were enrolled. One person at each site was trained in visual acuity measurement and use of the computerized system. Visual acuity was measured, and strabismus testing was performed using two flash photographs. All data from the three primary observers were sent to an experienced assistant researcher, who was blinded to the primary results, for re-evaluation. The primary and re-evaluation results of the Photo-Hirschberg screenings using weighted kappa for agreement were compared.
resultsThe study included 181 participants (88 males and 93 females) and the results for primary and re-evaluation screenings were corresponded. Ten participants with contrasting results presented with unclear corneal light reflex. Sensitivity and specificity were 100% [95% confidence interval (CI): 29.0%-100%] and 99.4% (95%CI: 96.6%-100%), respectively, based on the Agresti test of the primary evaluation, considering the re-evaluated classification as true.
conclusionThe computerized system can be used for primary strabismus screening by non-specialized personnel, with 98.8% agreement with specialists. However, it cannot be used as a substitute for professional examination.
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.