Okklusionstherapie bei Amblyopie

Fronius, Maria

doi:10.1007/s00347-016-0235-7

Cited by 4 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Amblyopia is usually asymptomatic and treatment is much more effective if carried out before the age of about 7 years [1][2][3], so it fulfils many of the World Health Organisation (WHO) criteria [4] as a target condition for screening. Unscreened prevalence is~3% [5][6][7] in Caucasian populations, while that of significant refractive error can be up to 16% [7,8] because many children with refractive errors will have normal best-corrected visual acuity (VA).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scope and costs of autorefraction and photoscreening for childhood amblyopia—a systematic narrative review in relation to the EUSCREEN project data

Horwood

Griffiths

Carlton

et al. 2020

Eye

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract