ArticleCureus2026
Esotropia Missed During Pre-health Checkup Screening With the Spot Vision Screener: A Case Series.
Article in Cureus, 2026. 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.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Spot Vision Screener (SVS) is increasingly used for the early detection of amblyopia risk factors in preschool children, particularly during health checkups for three-year-olds. Although SVS demonstrates high sensitivity and specificity for refractive errors and amblyopia risk factors, its ability to detect strabismus, especially accommodative esotropia, remains limited. We present a case of accommodative esotropia in children under three years of age where SVS failed to detect ocular misalignment. In all cases, SVS indicated only mild hyperopia and did not detect strabismus; however, subsequent ophthalmological assessment revealed accommodative esotropia, which was confirmed by cycloplegic refraction. All patients responded well to full hyperopic correction with spectacles, which resulted in improved or normalized ocular alignment. These cases highlight the potential for false-negative strabismus results with SVS, particularly in young children and in cases where esotropia is variable or predominantly manifests at near. Our findings underscore the need for a comprehensive clinical assessment, including careful observation, cycloplegic refraction, and repeated SVS measurements, to ensure timely and accurate referral for ophthalmological evaluation. Enhanced education and training for healthcare professionals involved in vision screening are also essential to maximize the detection rates of amblyopia and strabismus and to prevent missed diagnoses of clinically significant strabismus.
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.