Cargando…

Universal newborn eye screening: a systematic review of the literature and review of international guidelines

BACKGROUND: This systematic review assessed the effectiveness of universal screening for newborn eye abnormalities compared with no screening in improving infant vision and health outcomes. METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health, Global Index Medicus, clinica...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Malik, Aeesha NJ, Evans, Jennifer R, Gupta, Shuchita, Mariotti, Silvio, Gordon, Iris, Bowman, Richard, Gilbert, Clare
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: International Society of Global Health 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9586142/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36269293
http://dx.doi.org/10.7189/jogh.12.12003
_version_ 1784813634237497344
author Malik, Aeesha NJ
Evans, Jennifer R
Gupta, Shuchita
Mariotti, Silvio
Gordon, Iris
Bowman, Richard
Gilbert, Clare
author_facet Malik, Aeesha NJ
Evans, Jennifer R
Gupta, Shuchita
Mariotti, Silvio
Gordon, Iris
Bowman, Richard
Gilbert, Clare
author_sort Malik, Aeesha NJ
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: This systematic review assessed the effectiveness of universal screening for newborn eye abnormalities compared with no screening in improving infant vision and health outcomes. METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health, Global Index Medicus, clinical trials databases, and bibliographies of relevant articles. We included randomized and observational studies of all newborns, regardless of illness or risk factors, that compared universal screening for any eye abnormality by eight weeks of age with no universal screening. Two authors independently selected studies, extracted data, and evaluated the risk of bias. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. We also reviewed available recommendations on newborn eye screening. RESULTS: Fourteen studies were identified but only three compared universal red reflex screening with no screening. Findings suggest that universal red reflex testing in maternity wards (MWs) may increase the number of newborns with congenital cataracts referred for eye care from MWs or well-baby clinics (WBCs) in the first year of life (risk ratio (RR) = 9.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.36-71.20; low certainty evidence). However, the effect of screening in WBC is uncertain (RR = 6.62, 95% CI = 0.87-50.09). The effect of MW or WBC screening on referral from any health care facility (MWs, WBCs, paediatrician clinic, other) in the first year is uncertain (MW screening: RR = 1.22, 95% CI = 0.63-2.39; WBC screening: RR = 0.97, 95% CI = 0.46-2.05). However, referral or surgery by 6 weeks of age may be higher with universal MW screening (early referral: RR = 4.61, 95% CI = 1.12-19.01; early surgery: RR = 8.23, 95% CI = 1.13-59.80; low certainty evidence). The effect of WBC screening on early referral and surgery is uncertain (early referral: RR = 1.98, 95% CI = 0.43-9.19; early surgery: RR = 3.97, 95% CI = 0.50-31.33; very low certainty evidence). Universal red reflex testing may increase clinical conjunctivitis (OR = 1.22, 95% CI = 1.01-1.47; low certainty evidence) but the effect on confirmed bacterial conjunctivitis is uncertain (OR = 1.20, 95% CI = 0.76-1.90; very low-certainty evidence). Nine guidelines recommended universal newborn eye screening using red reflex testing. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence supports the role of red reflex testing shortly after birth to increase early identification, referral, and surgery for congenital cataracts.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9586142
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher International Society of Global Health
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-95861422022-10-28 Universal newborn eye screening: a systematic review of the literature and review of international guidelines Malik, Aeesha NJ Evans, Jennifer R Gupta, Shuchita Mariotti, Silvio Gordon, Iris Bowman, Richard Gilbert, Clare J Glob Health Research Theme 8: Global evidence for postnatal care of newborns BACKGROUND: This systematic review assessed the effectiveness of universal screening for newborn eye abnormalities compared with no screening in improving infant vision and health outcomes. METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health, Global Index Medicus, clinical trials databases, and bibliographies of relevant articles. We included randomized and observational studies of all newborns, regardless of illness or risk factors, that compared universal screening for any eye abnormality by eight weeks of age with no universal screening. Two authors independently selected studies, extracted data, and evaluated the risk of bias. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. We also reviewed available recommendations on newborn eye screening. RESULTS: Fourteen studies were identified but only three compared universal red reflex screening with no screening. Findings suggest that universal red reflex testing in maternity wards (MWs) may increase the number of newborns with congenital cataracts referred for eye care from MWs or well-baby clinics (WBCs) in the first year of life (risk ratio (RR) = 9.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.36-71.20; low certainty evidence). However, the effect of screening in WBC is uncertain (RR = 6.62, 95% CI = 0.87-50.09). The effect of MW or WBC screening on referral from any health care facility (MWs, WBCs, paediatrician clinic, other) in the first year is uncertain (MW screening: RR = 1.22, 95% CI = 0.63-2.39; WBC screening: RR = 0.97, 95% CI = 0.46-2.05). However, referral or surgery by 6 weeks of age may be higher with universal MW screening (early referral: RR = 4.61, 95% CI = 1.12-19.01; early surgery: RR = 8.23, 95% CI = 1.13-59.80; low certainty evidence). The effect of WBC screening on early referral and surgery is uncertain (early referral: RR = 1.98, 95% CI = 0.43-9.19; early surgery: RR = 3.97, 95% CI = 0.50-31.33; very low certainty evidence). Universal red reflex testing may increase clinical conjunctivitis (OR = 1.22, 95% CI = 1.01-1.47; low certainty evidence) but the effect on confirmed bacterial conjunctivitis is uncertain (OR = 1.20, 95% CI = 0.76-1.90; very low-certainty evidence). Nine guidelines recommended universal newborn eye screening using red reflex testing. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence supports the role of red reflex testing shortly after birth to increase early identification, referral, and surgery for congenital cataracts. International Society of Global Health 2022-10-21 /pmc/articles/PMC9586142/ /pubmed/36269293 http://dx.doi.org/10.7189/jogh.12.12003 Text en Copyright © 2022 by the Journal of Global Health. All rights reserved. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
spellingShingle Research Theme 8: Global evidence for postnatal care of newborns
Malik, Aeesha NJ
Evans, Jennifer R
Gupta, Shuchita
Mariotti, Silvio
Gordon, Iris
Bowman, Richard
Gilbert, Clare
Universal newborn eye screening: a systematic review of the literature and review of international guidelines
title Universal newborn eye screening: a systematic review of the literature and review of international guidelines
title_full Universal newborn eye screening: a systematic review of the literature and review of international guidelines
title_fullStr Universal newborn eye screening: a systematic review of the literature and review of international guidelines
title_full_unstemmed Universal newborn eye screening: a systematic review of the literature and review of international guidelines
title_short Universal newborn eye screening: a systematic review of the literature and review of international guidelines
title_sort universal newborn eye screening: a systematic review of the literature and review of international guidelines
topic Research Theme 8: Global evidence for postnatal care of newborns
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9586142/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36269293
http://dx.doi.org/10.7189/jogh.12.12003
work_keys_str_mv AT malikaeeshanj universalnewborneyescreeningasystematicreviewoftheliteratureandreviewofinternationalguidelines
AT evansjenniferr universalnewborneyescreeningasystematicreviewoftheliteratureandreviewofinternationalguidelines
AT guptashuchita universalnewborneyescreeningasystematicreviewoftheliteratureandreviewofinternationalguidelines
AT mariottisilvio universalnewborneyescreeningasystematicreviewoftheliteratureandreviewofinternationalguidelines
AT gordoniris universalnewborneyescreeningasystematicreviewoftheliteratureandreviewofinternationalguidelines
AT bowmanrichard universalnewborneyescreeningasystematicreviewoftheliteratureandreviewofinternationalguidelines
AT gilbertclare universalnewborneyescreeningasystematicreviewoftheliteratureandreviewofinternationalguidelines