ArticleActa ophthalmologica2025
Vision screening and refraction of Greenlandic schoolchildren.
Article in Acta ophthalmologica, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Changing Natural History of Anisometropia: A Scoping Review.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026Article
- Visual profiling and vision screening of preschool children in Greenland.International journal of circumpolar health · 2025Article
- Vision screening and refraction of Greenlandic schoolchildren.Acta ophthalmologica · 2025Article
- Laser Photocoagulation Subsequent to Intravitreal Ranibizumab for Retinopathy of Prematurity Long-Term Efficacy in Extremely Low Birth Weight Twins.Journal of ophthalmology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo estimate the prevalence of amblyopia and refractive errors among 6-year-old children in Greenland and to assess the impact of incorporating autorefraction, stereoacuity and near visual acuity testing into vision screening.
methodsIn this cross-sectional study, 517 children (238 girls and 279 boys) from 21 locations in Greenland were screened using HOTV charts for distance and near visual acuity (VA), stereoacuity test and non-cycloplegic autorefraction. Referral criteria for further ophthalmological examination included a VA of ≥0.2 logMAR on the worse-seeing eye or an interocular VA difference of ≥2 lines.
resultsInitial screening identified amblyopia (defined as VA of ≥0.3 logMAR) in 7% (unilateral) and 3% (bilateral) of children. However, subsequent ophthalmological examinations confirmed amblyopia in under 40% of referrals. Significant interocular VA differences were found in 9%. The prevalence of refractive errors at the screening was 3% for myopia (≤-0.5 dioptres), 10% for hyperopia (>+2.0 dioptres) and 14% for astigmatism (≤-1.00 dioptres), while the corresponding prevalences at the ophthalmological examination were 4% for myopia, 8% for hyperopia and 6% for astigmatism. Combining screening measurements increased the positive predictive values, thereby enhancing screening accuracy. Specifically, the incorporation of autorefraction or stereoacuity with distance VA demonstrated to be the most effective combination. Six percent of the children were prescribed glasses after the screening procedure.
conclusionThis study provides the first visual profile of Greenlandic schoolchildren. Incorporating autorefraction, stereoacuity and near visual acuity in vision screenings enhanced the efficacy of detection of vision anomalies. Although this may lead to more false positives, accurate screening is crucial in regions with limited ophthalmological resources.
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.