ArticlePreventive medicine reports2024
Cost-effectiveness of screening for amblyopia among kindergarten children in China.
Article in Preventive medicine reports, 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy of Dichoptic Treatment vs Eye Patching in Pediatric Patients with Amblyopia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Review
- Developing a Novel Pediatric Eye Chart Assessing Visual Acuity by Minimum Separable Threshold.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Current cost-effectiveness analyses of amblyopia screening are mainly from western countries. It remains unclear whether it is cost-effective to implement a preschool amblyopia screening programme in China. Our study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a hypothetical kindergarten-based amblyopia screening versus non-screening among 3-year-old children. Methods: We developed a decision tree combined with a Markov model to compare the cost and effectiveness of screening versus non-screening for 3-year-old children from a third-party payment perspective. The primary outcomes were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Costs were obtained from expert opinions in different regions of China. Transition probabilities and health utilities were mainly based on published literature and open sources. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the impact of parameters' uncertainty on results. Results: Base-case analysis demonstrated that the ICER of screening versus non-screening was $17,466/QALY, well below the WTP threshold ($38,223/QALY) for China. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that the prevalence of amblyopia, the transition probability per year from untreated amblyopia to healthy, and the discount rate were the top three factors. The likelihood of cost-effectiveness of screening compared with non-screening was 92.56%, according to probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Scenario analysis also indicated that ICER was lower than the WTP threshold even if the time horizon was shortened or the screening was delayed to the age of 4 or 5. Conclusions: Amblyopia screening could be considered a cost-effective strategy compared to non-screening for 3-year-old children in China. Screening for children at the age of 4 or 5 may even yield better results.
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.