U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Cover of Vision Screening in Children Ages 6 Months to 5 Years

Vision Screening in Children Ages 6 Months to 5 Years

A Systematic Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force

Evidence Synthesis, No. 153

Investigators: , MD, MPH, , MSPH, , PhD, , MD, MPH, , MD, MPH, , MD, MPH, and .

Author Information and Affiliations
Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); .
Report No.: 17-05228-EF-1

Structured Abstract

Purpose:

To systematically review the evidence on screening for and treatment of amblyopia, its risk factors, and refractive error in children ages 6 months to 5 years.

Data Sources:

PubMed/MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and trial registries through June 2016; reference lists of included articles and existing systematic reviews; outside experts; reviewers; and surveillance of the literature through June 7, 2017.

Study Selection:

Two investigators independently selected English-language studies using a priori criteria. Eligible studies included randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) or prospective cohort studies with a concurrent control group that evaluated screening in children without known impaired visual acuity or obvious symptoms of impaired visual acuity; studies evaluating accuracy of screening tests compared with cycloplegic refraction or a comprehensive eye examination; RCTs of treatment compared with inactive controls; and controlled cohort or case-control studies assessing harms of screening or treatment.

Data Extraction:

One investigator extracted data and a second checked accuracy. Two reviewers independently rated quality for all included studies using predefined criteria.

Data Synthesis:

We included 40 studies; 34 evaluated test accuracy. No RCTs compared screening with no screening. One prospective cohort study (N=6,081) from the population-based Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) compared screening at age 37 months with no screening among children who were routinely screened at ages 4 to 5 years (in both groups) and found no statistically significant difference for amblyopia prevalence at age 7.5 years for three different definitions of amblyopia (adjusted odds ratio, 0.63 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.32 to 1.23] for interocular difference in acuity ≥0.2 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution [logMAR], 0.72 [95% CI, 0.32 to 1.60] for interocular difference in acuity ≥0.3 logMAR, and 0.65 [95% CI, 0.38 to 1.10] for visual acuity in amblyopic eye 0.18 logMAR or worse). One RCT (N=3,490) from ALSPAC found about a 1 percent lower prevalence of amblyopia at age 7.5 years for intensive screening (at ages 8, 12, 18, 25, 31, and 37 months) compared with screening at age 37 months, although the difference was only statistically significant for one of two definitions of amblyopia (interocular difference in acuity ≥0.2 logMAR, 1.5% vs. 2.7%; relative risk, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.29 to 1.04]; interocular difference in acuity ≥0.3 logMAR, 0.6% vs. 1.8%; relative risk, 0.35 [95% CI, 0.15 to 0.86]).

Estimates for screening tests suggest utility for identifying children at higher risk for amblyopia risk factors or other visual conditions. Positive likelihood ratios were in the moderate range (5 to 10) for most studies, indicating that an abnormal result moderately increased the likelihood of target conditions. Most studies that evaluated combinations of clinical tests found high (>10) positive likelihood ratios. The largest study to directly compare multiple tests found similar accuracy across screening tests. Low testability rates may limit tests in children younger than age 3 years, especially clinical tests (e.g., visual and stereoacuity tests), but some data suggest that photoscreeners have high testability rates for younger children.

RCTs of treatment show that: 1) patching improves visual acuity of the amblyopic eye by an average of less than 1 line on the Snellen chart after 5 to 12 weeks among children with amblyopia risk factors pretreated with glasses, and more children treated with patching than with no patching experienced improvement of 2 or more lines (45% vs. 21%; p=0.003); 2) patching plus glasses improves visual acuity by about 1 line after 1 year (0.11 logMAR [95% CI, 0.05 to 0.17]) among children with amblyopia risk factors not pretreated with glasses; 3) glasses alone improve visual acuity by less than 1 line after 1 year (0.08 logMAR [95% CI, 0.02 to 0.15]) among children with amblyopia risk factors; and 4) the magnitude of improvement for patching plus glasses or glasses alone was greater among children with worse baseline visual acuity.

Few studies addressed potential adverse effects of screening. One prospective cohort study (N=4,473) from the ALSPAC project assessed school-age bullying by age 8 years among the subgroup of patched children; those screened in preschool had lower rates of bullying compared with those not screened in preschool. Screening tests are associated with high false-positive rates in low-prevalence populations; studies with a lower prevalence (<10%) of vision abnormalities showed much higher rates of false-positive results (usually >75%), while studies with a high prevalence had lower false-positive rates (usually <35%).

Limitations:

No included studies evaluated school performance, functioning, or quality of life. The main limitation of the ALSPAC studies was high overall attrition (approximately 50%). Common methodological limitations of test accuracy studies included high (or not reported) rates of uninterpretable results or noncompliance with tests, unclear handling of uninterpretable results or noncompliance in analyses, lack of a representative spectrum of participants, and lack of a random or consecutive sample. Studies of test accuracy were most commonly conducted in Head Start programs, schools, the community, or ophthalmology clinics; primary care clinics were rarely involved. Applicability of findings to primary care settings is therefore less certain.

Conclusions:

Studies that directly evaluated the effectiveness of screening were limited (because of study designs, attrition, imprecision, and quality) and do not establish whether vision screening in preschool-age children is better than no screening. Indirect evidence supports 1) the utility of multiple screening tests for identifying preschool-age children at higher risk for amblyopia risk factors or other visual conditions (most studies found that abnormal results moderately increased the likelihood of target conditions), and 2) the effectiveness of some treatments for improving visual acuity outcomes, although improvements were small, on average. Evidence on adverse effects of screening indicated a reduction in bullying and high false-positive rates in low-prevalence populations.

Contents

Prepared for: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services1, Contract No. HHSA-290-2012-00015-I, Task Order No. 6. Prepared by: RTI International–University of North Carolina Evidence-based Practice Center2,

Suggested citation:

Jonas DE, Amick HR, Wallace IF, Feltner C, Vander Schaaf EB, Brown CL, Baker C. Vision Screening in Children Ages 6 Months to 5 Years: A Systematic Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Evidence Synthesis No. 153. AHRQ Publication No. 17-05228-EF-1. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2017.

This report is based on research conducted by the RTI International–University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) under contract to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Rockville, MD (Contract No. HHSA-290-2012-00015-I, Task Order No. 6). The findings and conclusions in this document are those of the authors, who are responsible for its contents, and do not necessarily represent the views of AHRQ. Therefore, no statement in this report should be construed as an official position of AHRQ or of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

The information in this report is intended to help health care decisionmakers—patients and clinicians, health system leaders, and policymakers, among others—make well-informed decisions and thereby improve the quality of health care services. This report is not intended to be a substitute for the application of clinical judgment. Anyone who makes decisions concerning the provision of clinical care should consider this report in the same way as any medical reference and in conjunction with all other pertinent information (i.e., in the context of available resources and circumstances presented by individual patients).

This report may be used, in whole or in part, as the basis for development of clinical practice guidelines and other quality enhancement tools, or as a basis for reimbursement and coverage policies. AHRQ or U.S. Department of Health and Human Services endorsement of such derivative products may not be stated or implied.

None of the investigators have any affiliations or financial involvement that conflicts with the material presented in this report.

1

5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857; www‚Äč.ahrq.gov

2

Research Triangle Park, NC

Bookshelf ID: NBK487841PMID: 29561582

Views

  • PubReader
  • Print View
  • Cite this Page
  • PDF version of this title (1.6M)

Related information

Similar articles in PubMed

See reviews...See all...

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...