Trial reportCanadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique2024
Continued care and provision of glasses are necessary to improve visual and academic outcomes in children: Experience from a cluster-randomized controlled trial of school-based vision screening.
Trial report in Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the effectiveness of a kindergarten vision screening program by randomly assigning schools to receive or not receive vision screening, then following up 1.5 years later.
methodsFifty high-needs elementary schools were randomly assigned to participate or not in a vision screening program for children in senior kindergarten (SK; age 5‒6 years). When the children were in Grade 2 (age 6‒7 years), vision screening was conducted at all 50 schools.
resultsContrary to expectations, screened and non-screened schools did not differ in the prevalence of suspected amblyopia in Grade 2 (8.6% vs. 7.5%, p = 0.10), nor prevalence of other visual problems such as astigmatism (45.1% vs. 47.1%, p = 0.51). There was also no difference between screened and non-screened schools in academic outcomes such as the proportion of children below grade level in reading (33% vs. 29%) or math (44% vs. 38%) (p = 0.86). However, more children were wearing glasses in screened than in non-screened schools (10.2% vs. 7.8%, p = 0.05), and more children reported their glasses as missing or broken (8.3% vs. 4.7%, p = 0.01), suggesting that SK screening had identified successfully those in need of glasses. Examination of individual results revealed that 72% of children diagnosed and treated for amblyopia in SK no longer had amblyopia in Grade 2.
conclusionThe prevalence of amblyopia and other visual problems was not reduced in Grade 2 by our SK vision screening program, perhaps because of poor treatment compliance and high attrition. The results suggest that a single screening intervention is insufficient to reduce visual problems among young children. However, the data from individuals with amblyopia suggest that continuing vision care and access to glasses benefits children, especially children from lower socioeconomic class.
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.