Validity of a layperson-administered Web-based vision screening test

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 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.

Telerehabilitation for Children and Youth with Developmental Disabilities and Their Families: A Systematic Review

AIM

To determine the level of evidence for the effectiveness of telerehabilitation against comparison interventions in improving child- and parent-related outcomes in children and youth with developmental disabilities.

METHOD

A systematic approach, comprised of a comprehensive search; transparent study selection, data extraction, quality assessment by independent reviewers; and synthesis of sufficiently similar data (per diagnostic group, health profession, and overall level of evidence for each outcome) was undertaken.

RESULTS

Fifty-five studies (29 randomized trials) were included across six diagnostic groups and ten health professions. Common telerehabilitation targets varied across diagnostic groups and included motor function, behavior, language, and parental self-efficacy. Telerehabilitation was found to be either more effective or as effective versus comparison intervention in improving 46.9% or 53.1% of outcomes, respectively. It was never found to be detrimental or less effective. Strong to moderate, limited, and insufficient levels of evidence were found for 36.5%, 24.5%, and 38.6% of the outcomes, respectively.

CONCLUSION

There is sufficient evidence suggesting that telerehabilitation is a promising alternative when face-to-face care is limited. It is comparable to usual care and is more effective than no treatment. Blending in-person and telerehabilitation approaches could be beneficial for the post-pandemic future of rehabilitation in pediatric care.

Home-based screening tools for amblyopia: a systematic review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Amblyopia is an important public health concern associated with functional vision loss and detrimental impact on the physical and mental well-being of children. The gold standard for diagnosis of amblyogenic conditions currently involves screening by orthoptists and/or ophthalmologists. The bloom of technology enables the use of home-based screening tools to detect these conditions at an early stage by the layperson in community, which could reduce the burden of screening in the community, especially during restrictions associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Here, we propose a systematic review aiming to evaluate the accuracy and reliability of home-based screening tools compared with the existing gold standard.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We aim to search for studies involving home-based screening tools for amblyopia among children aged under 18 years. Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Level 4 evidence and above will be included, without language or time restrictions. The following platforms will be searched from inception to 31 August 2021: PubMed, Medline, The Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection and Clinicaltrials.gov. Two independent reviewers will identify studies for inclusion based on a screening questionnaire. The search and screening will start on 14 August 2021 until 1 October 2021. We aim to complete our data analysis by 30 November 2021. Risk of bias will be assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) tool for diagnostic accuracy studies only. Our primary outcome measure is the diagnostic accuracy of home-based screening tools, while secondary outcome measures include validity, feasibility, reproducibility and cost-effectiveness, where available.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval is not necessary as no primary data will be collected. The findings will be disseminated through presentations at scientific meetings and peer-reviewed journal publication.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021233511.

Portable acuity screening for any school: validation of patched HOTV with amblyopic patients and Bangerter normals

Background

We needed to validate and calibrate our portable acuity screening tools so amblyopia could be detected quickly and effectively at school entry.

Methods

Spiral-bound flip cards and download pdf surround HOTV acuity test box with critical lines were combined with a matching card. Amblyopic patients performed critical line, then threshold acuity which was then compared to patched E-ETDRS acuity. 5 normal subjects wore Bangerter foil goggles to simulate blur for comparative validation.

Results

The 31 treated amblyopic eyes showed: logMAR HOTV = 0.97(logMAR E-ETDRS)-0.04 r2 = 0.88. All but two (6%) fell less than 2 lines difference. The five showed logMAR HOTV = 1.09 ((logMAR E-ETDRS) + .15 r2 = 0.63. The critical-line, test box was 98% efficient at screening within one line of 20/40.

Conclusion

These tools reliably detected acuity in treated amblyopic patients and Bangerter blurred normal subjects.

These free and affordable tools provide sensitive screening for amblyopia in children from public, private and home schools. Changing “pass” criteria to 4 out of 5 would improve sensitivity with somewhat slower testing for all students.