Cargando…

Home-based screening tools for amblyopia: a systematic review

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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sii, Samantha Siaw Zhen, Chean, Chung Shen, Kuht, Helen, Bunce, Catey, Thomas, Mervyn G., Rufai, Sohaib R.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group UK 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9951845/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36828959
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41433-023-02412-3
_version_ 1784893480503345152
author Sii, Samantha Siaw Zhen
Chean, Chung Shen
Kuht, Helen
Bunce, Catey
Thomas, Mervyn G.
Rufai, Sohaib R.
author_facet Sii, Samantha Siaw Zhen
Chean, Chung Shen
Kuht, Helen
Bunce, Catey
Thomas, Mervyn G.
Rufai, Sohaib R.
author_sort Sii, Samantha Siaw Zhen
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9951845
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Nature Publishing Group UK
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-99518452023-02-24 Home-based screening tools for amblyopia: a systematic review Sii, Samantha Siaw Zhen Chean, Chung Shen Kuht, Helen Bunce, Catey Thomas, Mervyn G. Rufai, Sohaib R. Eye (Lond) Review Article 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. Nature Publishing Group UK 2023-02-24 2023-09 /pmc/articles/PMC9951845/ /pubmed/36828959 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41433-023-02412-3 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Review Article
Sii, Samantha Siaw Zhen
Chean, Chung Shen
Kuht, Helen
Bunce, Catey
Thomas, Mervyn G.
Rufai, Sohaib R.
Home-based screening tools for amblyopia: a systematic review
title Home-based screening tools for amblyopia: a systematic review
title_full Home-based screening tools for amblyopia: a systematic review
title_fullStr Home-based screening tools for amblyopia: a systematic review
title_full_unstemmed Home-based screening tools for amblyopia: a systematic review
title_short Home-based screening tools for amblyopia: a systematic review
title_sort home-based screening tools for amblyopia: a systematic review
topic Review Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9951845/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36828959
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41433-023-02412-3
work_keys_str_mv AT siisamanthasiawzhen homebasedscreeningtoolsforamblyopiaasystematicreview
AT cheanchungshen homebasedscreeningtoolsforamblyopiaasystematicreview
AT kuhthelen homebasedscreeningtoolsforamblyopiaasystematicreview
AT buncecatey homebasedscreeningtoolsforamblyopiaasystematicreview
AT thomasmervyng homebasedscreeningtoolsforamblyopiaasystematicreview
AT rufaisohaibr homebasedscreeningtoolsforamblyopiaasystematicreview