Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Photoscreening for amblyopia risk factors assessment in young children: A systematic review with meta-analysis.
Ferreira, André; Vieira, Rita; Maia, Sofia; Miranda, Vasco; Parreira, Ricardo; Menéres, Pedro.
Afiliação
  • Ferreira A; Service of Ophthalmology, 112085Centro Hospitalar Universitário do Porto, Porto, Portugal.
  • Vieira R; Unit of Anatomy, Department of Biomedicine, Faculty of Medicine of University of Porto, Porto, Portugal.
  • Maia S; Service of Ophthalmology, 112085Centro Hospitalar Universitário do Porto, Porto, Portugal.
  • Miranda V; Service of Ophthalmology, 112085Centro Hospitalar Universitário do Porto, Porto, Portugal.
  • Parreira R; Service of Ophthalmology, 112085Centro Hospitalar Universitário do Porto, Porto, Portugal.
  • Menéres P; Department of Ophthalmology, Instituto de Ciências Biomédicas Abel Salazar, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal.
Eur J Ophthalmol ; 33(1): 92-103, 2023 Jan.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35522228
ABSTRACT

PURPOSE:

Amblyopia is a leading cause of preventable and treatable vision loss in the pediatric population. Instrument-based screening of amblyopia-risk factors is being widely adopted but the audit of its results is still lacking. We sought to review the existing evidence regarding the outcomes of photoscreening applied to children under the age of three years.

METHODS:

A three-database search (Pubmed, ISI Web of Science, and Scopus) was performed from inception to March 2021. A meta-analysis of proportions was conducted to summarize the referral rate, untestable rate and positive predictive value (PPV).

RESULTS:

Thirteen studies were selected among 705 original abstracts. The quantitative analysis included twelve studies enrolling 64,041 children. Of these, 13% (95%CI 7-19%) were referred for further confirmation of the screening result. Astigmatism was the most common diagnosis both after screening and after ophthalmologic assessment of referred children. The pooled untestable rate and PPV were 8% (95%CI 3-15%) and 56% (95%CI 40-71%), respectively.

CONCLUSION:

There is no global consensus on the optimal age, frequency or what magnitude of refractive error must be considered an amblyopia-risk factor. Optimization of referral criteria is therefore warranted.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Temas: ECOS / Aspectos_gerais Bases de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Erros de Refração / Seleção Visual / Ambliopia Tipo de estudo: Etiology_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies / Systematic_reviews Limite: Child / Child, preschool / Humans Idioma: En Revista: Eur J Ophthalmol Assunto da revista: OFTALMOLOGIA Ano de publicação: 2023 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Portugal

Texto completo: 1 Temas: ECOS / Aspectos_gerais Bases de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Erros de Refração / Seleção Visual / Ambliopia Tipo de estudo: Etiology_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies / Systematic_reviews Limite: Child / Child, preschool / Humans Idioma: En Revista: Eur J Ophthalmol Assunto da revista: OFTALMOLOGIA Ano de publicação: 2023 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Portugal