Home-based screening tools for amblyopia: a systematic review
dc.contributor.author | Chean, Chung Shen | |
dc.contributor.author | Kuht, Helen | |
dc.contributor.author | Thomas, Mervyn | |
dc.contributor.author | Rufai, Sohaib | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2023-06-06T13:00:51Z | |
dc.date.available | 2023-06-06T13:00:51Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2023-02-24 | |
dc.identifier.citation | Sii, S. S. Z., Chean, C. S., Kuht, H., Bunce, C., Thomas, M. G., & Rufai, S. R. (2023). Home-based screening tools for amblyopia: a systematic review. Eye (London, England), 1–10. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-023-02412-3 | en_US |
dc.identifier.other | 10.1038/s41433-023-02412-3 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12904/17152 | |
dc.description.abstract | Amblyopia is an important public health concern. While home-based screening may present an effective solution, this has not been rigorously assessed in a systematic review. A systematic review was performed using Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, and Clinicaltrials.gov. All studies reporting the diagnostic accuracy of home-based screening tools for amblyopia among children were included. Studies involving orthoptist or ophthalmologist-led screening and adult subjects were excluded. The main outcome measure was the diagnostic accuracy expressed as sensitivity and specificity. Among 3670 studies identified, 28 were eligible for inclusion in our systematic review. The age range of patients were less than 1 month to 16 years old. 7 studies used internet-based tools, 16 used smartphone/tablet applications, 3 used digital cameras, and 3 used home-based questionnaires and visual acuity tools. All studies included a reference standard except one, which was a longitudinal study. 21 studies had full ophthalmological examination whilst 6 studies had validated visual acuity measurement tools as gold standards. Of the 27 studies which compared against a reference test, only 25 studies reported sensitivity and specificity values. Using the QUADAS-2 tool, 50% of studies were deemed to have applicability concern due to patient selection from tertiary centres and unclear methods for recruitment. There is a need to improve the quality of diagnostic accuracy studies, standardise thresholds for detecting amblyopia, and ensure consistent reporting of results. Further research is needed to evaluate the suitability of these tools for amblyopia screening. | |
dc.description.uri | https://www.nature.com/articles/s41433-023-02412-3 | en_US |
dc.language.iso | en | en_US |
dc.title | Home-based screening tools for amblyopia: a systematic review | en_US |
dc.type | Article | en_US |
rioxxterms.funder | Default funder | en_US |
rioxxterms.identifier.project | Default project | en_US |
rioxxterms.version | NA | en_US |
rioxxterms.versionofrecord | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-023-02412-3 | en_US |
rioxxterms.type | Journal Article/Review | en_US |
refterms.panel | Unspecified | en_US |
html.description.abstract | Amblyopia is an important public health concern. While home-based screening may present an effective solution, this has not been rigorously assessed in a systematic review. A systematic review was performed using Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, and Clinicaltrials.gov. All studies reporting the diagnostic accuracy of home-based screening tools for amblyopia among children were included. Studies involving orthoptist or ophthalmologist-led screening and adult subjects were excluded. The main outcome measure was the diagnostic accuracy expressed as sensitivity and specificity. Among 3670 studies identified, 28 were eligible for inclusion in our systematic review. The age range of patients were less than 1 month to 16 years old. 7 studies used internet-based tools, 16 used smartphone/tablet applications, 3 used digital cameras, and 3 used home-based questionnaires and visual acuity tools. All studies included a reference standard except one, which was a longitudinal study. 21 studies had full ophthalmological examination whilst 6 studies had validated visual acuity measurement tools as gold standards. Of the 27 studies which compared against a reference test, only 25 studies reported sensitivity and specificity values. Using the QUADAS-2 tool, 50% of studies were deemed to have applicability concern due to patient selection from tertiary centres and unclear methods for recruitment. There is a need to improve the quality of diagnostic accuracy studies, standardise thresholds for detecting amblyopia, and ensure consistent reporting of results. Further research is needed to evaluate the suitability of these tools for amblyopia screening. | en_US |
rioxxterms.funder.project | 94a427429a5bcfef7dd04c33360d80cd | en_US |