SynthesisOphthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists)2026
Diagnostic Accuracy of Teacher-Administered School Vision Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists), 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo determine the diagnostic performance (sensitivity [SE] and specificity [SP]) of vision screening conducted by teachers compared to a gold-standard visual examination performed by eye care professionals for identifying refractive errors in children.
methodsThis systematic review and meta-analysis searched PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus for studies involving children aged 4-18 years. Methodological quality was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool, and diagnostic accuracy was synthesised using a Bivariate Random-Effects Model.
resultsNineteen articles (24 study arms) were included, involving approximately 5.7 million children and 34,500 teachers. Global meta-analysis revealed a pooled SE of 76.8% (95% CI: 62.4%, 86.9%), SP of 93.6% (95% CI: 85.7%, 97.3%) and area under the curve (AUC) of 0.92. Low-risk studies showed more conservative values (SE: 72.1% [95% CI: 57.2%, 83.4%]; SP: 96.0% [95% CI: 89.3%, 98.5%]) compared to high/unclear risk investigations (SE: 80.1% [95% CI: 55.6%, 92.8%]; SP: 90.8% [95% CI: 71.4%, 97.5%]). Additionally, (1) studies using a 6/12 cutoff showed more consistent diagnostic performance (minimum SE: 72.6%); (2) sensitivity was significantly higher in younger children (89.29%) than in adolescents (45.45%) and (3) studies specifying a cycloplegia protocol reported superior performance, with SE > 92.0% and SP > 72.0%. Overlapping confidence intervals and bias variability suggest that diagnostic accuracy depends on both reference standard rigour and teacher training/motivation.
conclusionVision screening by teachers is a viable strategy with high potential. Studies using a 6/12 cutoff demonstrated more consistent diagnostic performance, although this may reflect differences in study quality. The success of the programme depends on solid practical training and rigorous validation protocols. Involving all classroom teachers proves to be the preferred strategy for maximising early detection, while the selected teachers model stands out for its greater logistical feasibility. Continuous teacher training remains essential for the sustainability of vision screening programmes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42557529What 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.