ArticleJournal of multidisciplinary healthcare2024
Vision Screening and Detection of Ocular Abnormalities in School Children by Teachers in Jordan.
Article in Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Diagnostic Accuracy of Teacher-Administered School Vision Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026Pooled it
- Knowledge and Awareness of Myopia Among Parents and Teachers of Schoolchildren Aged 6-15 Years in Beirut, Lebanon.Vision (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Vision Screening at School: What Do Primary Teachers Know, and How Can They Help?The British and Irish orthoptic journal · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the accuracy of vision screening and detection of ocular abnormalities conducted by teachers in school children in Jordan compared with vision testing by optometrists and ocular disease identification by ophthalmologists. Methods: A non-random, purposive sampling strategy where 6-year-old and 15-year-old school children from three schools in Amman, Jordan were included. Twenty-two teachers were trained to conduct visual acuity screening using the 0.2 logMAR line of the distance visual acuity (DVA) chart at 10 feet and near visual acuity (NVA) chart at 16 inches, in addition to detecting ocular abnormalities. An optometrist assessed the visual acuity and conducted objective and subjective refraction, while an ophthalmologist examined the ocular health of all children. Results: A total of 542 children (51% female) were included in the study, of which 47% were 6 years old and 53% were 15 years old. Teacher screening had sensitivities of 76.92% for DVA, 68% for NVA, and 37.50% for abnormality detection. The specificities of DVA, NVA, and ocular abnormalities were 98.22%, 98.48%, and 99.24%, respectively. The positive predictive value for DVA, NVA, and ocular abnormalities were 83.33%, 99.00%, and 60%, respectively. The negative predictive value for each procedure was 98.22% for DVA, 98.48% for NVA, and 98.12% for ocular abnormalities. Conclusion: Teachers were able to conduct vision screening with a high level of accuracy compared to the gold standard of testing by optometrists, which would be useful for the early detection and referral of refractive errors in school children. However, they were unable to detect ocular abnormalities compared with the gold standard for disease identification by ophthalmologists. Further training and monitoring, or different training approaches should be implemented to enable teachers to identify ocular abnormalities at acceptable levels.
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.