ArticleJournal of AAPOS : the official publication of the American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus2026
Assessment of the Spot vision screener performance in detecting amblyopia and strabismus in Nepal: a prospective diagnostic accuracy study.
Article in Journal of AAPOS : the official publication of the American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus, 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
Abstract
backgroundPhotoscreening can quickly detect amblyopia and strabismus, but there is little data on the performances of screening devices in low-income countries. The goal of this study was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of the Spot vision screener in Nepal.
methodsThis prospective study enrolled a random sample of children 3-8 years of age seen in a pediatric ophthalmology clinic in Nepal. A trained ophthalmic assistant screened each child with using the Spot. A fellowship-trained pediatric ophthalmologist masked to screening results examined the children and to determine whether amblyopia or strabismus was present. This examination was the reference standard for diagnostic accuracy.
resultsOf 219 consecutive children seen in the clinic, 109 were randomly selected for enrollment, of whom 91 were enrolled (mean age, 6.4 ± 1.4 years; 63.2% male). Twenty (22%) were diagnosed with amblyopia; 7 (7.7%), with strabismus. Of the 91, 31 (34.1%) failed the Spot screening according to standardized examination failure criteria. For detecting amblyopia, failure on the Spot for any reason had a sensitivity of 90.0% (95% CI, 68.3%-98.8%) and specificity of 81.7% (70.7%-89.9%). For detecting strabismus, failure on the Spot for any reason had a sensitivity of 71.4% (29.0%-96.3%), and specificity of 69.0% (58.0%-78.7%). For amblyopia or strabismus, sensitivity was 83.3% (62.9%-95.3%), and specificity was 83.6% (72.5%-91.5%). Positive predictive value in the clinic population was 64.5% (45.4%-80.8%) and negative predictive value was 93.3% (83.8%-98.2%).
conclusionsIn this cohort, the Spot vision screener had relatively high sensitivity and moderate specificity for detecting amblyopia and strabismus, demonstrating its ability to correctly identify the majority of cases in a low-resource setting, although over-referral may result from its relatively low specificity and inaccurate autorefraction values.
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.