SynthesisBMC public health2026
Effectiveness of school vision screening by teachers - a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC public health, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVisual impairment among school children is a prevalent concern that can affect their academic performance, intellectual, and interpersonal growth. Due to a lack of eye care professionals, school teachers were commonly involved in vision screening programs, and their effectiveness has been reported by a few studies with some methodological variations. Therefore, this systematic review aims to assess the effectiveness of teacher-led school vision screening programs in comparison with vision screening done by eyecare professionals.
methodsThe Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) standards were followed for conducting the review. MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science were the databases used to search for original research articles using the keywords “vision screening,” “school children,” “teacher,” or related keywords. All quantitative studies were considered in this systematic review, while research articles involving a screening population greater than 18 years old were excluded. The meta-analysis was conducted utilizing the random effects model in the MetaDTA program.
resultsBased on the eligibility criteria, nine original research studies were taken into consideration for this systematic review. The summary receiver operating characteristics (SROC) curve analysis was performed. Two studies were excluded from the reanalysis due to poor sensitivity values and wider confidence intervals, indicating greater variability in sensitivity estimation. Pooled sensitivity and specificity of teacher conducted vision screening from seven studies were estimated to be 0.70 (95% CI [0.57, 0.80]) and 0.96 (95% CI [0.91, 0.98]), respectively.
conclusionThe results of this systematic review indicate that teacher conducted vision screening provides satisfactory results in comparison with vision screening done by eye care professionals. Therefore, school teachers can be a potential workforce for early identification of visual impairment and contribute to lowering the disease burden.
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.