Aim To establish differences in health‐related quality of life (HRQoL) in adults born term and those born very preterm (VPT) and/or with a very low birth weight (VLBW). Methods Our systematic review is preregistered under PROSPERO‐ID CRD42018084005. Studies were eligible for inclusion if their authors had stated the HRQoL of adults (18 years or older) born VPT (<32 weeks of gestation) or VLBW (<1500 g of birth weight) had been measured, if written in English, and if they reported a comparison with a control group or valid norms. We searched Pubmed, Scopus, Psycinfo, Web of Science, Embase and contacted experts in this field. Non‐response and other bias‐related problems were evaluated. Results We included 18 studies of 15 unique cohorts from 11 countries. In 11 studies, no differences in HRQoL between VPT or VLBW and term‐born adults were found; four studies found lower HRQoL in VPT/VLB adults; and evidence from three studies was inconclusive. Disability, sex and age were associated with HRQoL. Conclusion There is no conclusive evidence that HRQoL differs between term‐born adults and those born VPT or with a VLBW. The comparability of studies was restricted by differences between HRQoL measurements, age ranges at assessment and definition of disability.

Background Little is known about costs and effects of vision screening strategies to detect amblyopia. Aim of this study was to compare costs and effects of conventional (optotype) vision screening, photoscreening or a combination in children aged 3–6 years. Methods Population-based, cross-sectional study in preventive child health care in The Hague. Children aged 3 years (3y), 3 years and 9 months (3y9m) or 5–6 years (5/6y) received the conventional chart vision screening and a test with a photoscreener (Plusoptix S12C). Costs were based on test duration and additional costs for devices and diagnostic work-up. Results Two thousand, one hundred and forty-four children were included. The estimated costs per child screened were €17.44, €20.37 and €6.90 for conventional vision screening at 3y, 3y9m and 5/6y, respectively. For photoscreening, these estimates were €6.61, €7.52 and €9.40 and for photoscreening followed by vision screening if the result was unclear (combination) €9.32 (3y) and €9.33 (3y9m). The number of children detected with amblyopia by age were 9, 14 and 5 (conventional screening), 6, 13 and 3 (photoscreening) and 10 (3y) and 15 (3y9m) (combination), respectively. The estimated costs per child diagnosed with amblyopia were €1500, €1050 and €860 for conventional vision screening, €860, €420 and €1940 for photoscreening and €730 (3y) and €450 (3y9m) for the combination. Conclusions Combining photoscreening with vision screening seems promising to detect amblyopia in children aged 3y/3y9m, whereas conventional screening seems preferable at 5/6y. As the number of study children with amblyopia is small, further research on the effects of these screening alternatives in detecting children with amblyopia is recommended.

No abstract