Scope and costs of autorefraction and photoscreening for childhood amblyopia—a systematic narrative review in relation to the EUSCREEN project data
Authors:
- On Behalf Of The Euscreen FoundationOFOn Behalf Of The Euscreen Foundation
- Anna M. HorwoodAHAnna M. Horwood
- Jill CarltonJCJill Carlton
Open Access
- 30 November 2020
- journal article
- review article
- Published by Springer Nature in Eye
- Vol. 35 (3) , 739-752
Abstract
Background: Amblyopia screening can target reduced visual acuity (VA), its refractive risk factors, or both. VA testing is imprecise under 4 years of age, so automated risk-factor photoscreening appears an attractive option. This review considers photoscreening used in community services, focusing on costs, cost-effectiveness and scope of use, compared with EUSCREEN project Country Reports describing how photo- and automated screening is used internationally.Methods: A systematic narrative review was carried out of all English language photoscreening literature to September 10th 2018, using publicly available search terms. Where costs were considered, a CASP economic evaluation checklist was used to assess data quality.Results: Of 370 abstracts reviewed, 55 reported large-scale community photoscreening projects. Five addressed cost-effectiveness specifically, without original data. Photoscreening was a stand-alone, single, test event in 71% of projects. In contrast, 25 of 45 EUSCREEN Country Reports showed that if adopted, photoscreening often supplements other tests in established programmes and is rarely used as a stand-alone test. Reported costs varied widely and evidence of cost-effectiveness was sparse in the literature, or in international practice. Only eight (13%) papers compared the diagnostic accuracy or cost-effectiveness of photoscreening and VA testing, and when they did, cost-effectiveness of photoscreening compared unfavourably.Discussion: Evidence that photoscreening reduces amblyopia or strabismus prevalence or improves overall outcomes is weak, as is evidence of cost-effectiveness, compared to later VA screening. Currently, the most cost-effective option seems to be a later, expert VA screening with the opportunity for a re-test before referral.Keywords
Funding Information
- EC | Horizon 2020 Framework Programme (733352, 733352, 733352)
This publication has 117 references indexed in Scilit:
- A Comparison of the PlusoptiX S04 and A09 PhotoscreenersStrabismus, 2013
- Calibration and Validation of Nine Objective Vision Screeners With Contact Lens-Induced AnisometropiaJournal of Pediatric Ophthalmology & Strabismus, 2013
- Guidelines for automated preschool vision screening: A 10-year, evidence-based updateJournal of American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus, 2013
- The Potential Cost-Effectiveness of Amblyopia Screening ProgramsJournal of Pediatric Ophthalmology & Strabismus, 2012
- Rotterdam AMblyopia Screening Effectiveness Study: Detection and Causes of Amblyopia in a Large Birth CohortInvestigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, 2010
- Author's ResponseOptometry and Vision Science, 2009
- Findings from the Vision in Preschoolers (VIP) StudyOptometry and Vision Science, 2009
- Vision screening in children by Plusoptix Vision Screener compared with gold-standard orthoptic assessmentBritish Journal of Ophthalmology, 2008
- The prevalence rates of refractive errors among children, adolescents, and adults in GermanyClinical Ophthalmology, 2008
- Pediatric Amblyopia Risk Investigation Study (PARIS)American Journal of Ophthalmology, 2005