Elsevier

Ophthalmology

Volume 108, Issue 3, March 2001, Pages 479-486
Ophthalmology

Preschool vision screening: summary of a task force report1

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0161-6420(00)00588-1Get rights and content

Section snippets

Outcome 1: lack of data on validity and effectiveness of current screening methodologies and programs

The panel expressed concern about the lack of scientific data addressing the validity of currently available screening methodologies, the effectiveness of the programs that are being used to implement these methodologies, and the adequacy of follow-up and treatment of children identified by screening programs. Members acknowledged an urgent need for large-scale, generalizable studies aimed at answering basic questions about the reliability and validity of commonly used screening methods, as

Outcome 2: interim screening recommendations

The panel concluded its work by confronting the question of what recommendations should be made for preschool screening at the present time, before the research outlined above has been completed. Although a variety of recommendations have been published by various organizations5, 24 (Table 1), the panel believe that the recommendations are inconsistent and, therefore, confusing. In particular, as shown in Table 1, different tests are recommended by different agencies with little guidance for

The next step

A critical and unique feature of the expert panel and audience convened for these discussions was the wide range of disciplines represented. Researchers studying early visual development, clinicians (pediatricians, pediatric ophthalmologists and optometrists), various professionals with direct experience in vision screening in the United States and other countries, biostatisticians, epidemiologists, and health care economists all participated. This wide representation was deliberately chosen to

MCHB/NEI task force on vision screening

E. Eugenie Hartmann, PhD, Chair

Steering committee members

Velma Dobson, PhD Louise Hainline, PhD Wendy Marsh-Tootle, OD, MS Graham E. Quinn, MD Mark S. Ruttum, MD

Task force members

Steven Archer, MD, Department of Ophthalmology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI

Sean Donahue, MD, PhD, Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN

Gunilla Haegerstrom-Portnoy, OD, PhD, School of Optometry, University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, CA

Richard Harrad, MD, FRCS, Ophthalmology, Bristol Eye Hospital, Bristol, United Kingdom

Emmett Keeler, PhD, RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA

Alex R. Kemper, MD, MPH, Department of

Acknowledgements

Photos courtesy of Precision Vision, 944 First Street, La Salle, IL 61301, Phone: 815-223-2022, Fax: 815-223-2224, email: [email protected].

First page preview

First page preview
Click to open first page preview

References (41)

  • E.B. Ciner et al.

    A survey of vision screening policy of preschool children in the United States

    Surv Ophthalmol

    (1999)
  • K. Simons

    Preschool vision screeningRationale, methodology and outcome

    Surv Ophthalmol

    (1996)
  • T.M. Appelboom

    A history of vision screening

    J Schl Health

    (1985)
  • Gundersen T. Glaucoma and amblyopia ex anopsia: two preventable forms of blindness. Trans Sec Ophthalmol AMA 1954; p....
  • G. Lennerstrand et al.

    Screening for ocular dysfunction in childrenapproaching a common program

    Acta Ophthalmol Scand Suppl

    (1995)
  • G. Lennerstrand et al.

    Results of treatment of amblyopia with a screening program for early detection

    Acta Ophthalmol Scand Suppl

    (1996)
  • Schmidt P. Current screening programs. In: Vision Screening in the Preschool Child. Proceedings of a conference held in...
  • Wilson JMG, Jungner G. Principles and Practice of Screening for Disease. World Health Organization, Public Health...
  • G. Kvarnström et al.

    Screening for visual and ocular disorders in children, evaluation of the system in Sweden

    Acta Paediatr

    (1998)
  • J. Lithander

    Prevalence of amblyopia with anisometropia or strabismus among schoolchildren in the Sultanate of Oman

    Acta Ophthalmol Scand

    (1998)
  • Snowdon SK, Stewart-Brown SL. Pre-school vision screening: results of a systematic review. York: NHS Centre for...
  • S.K. Snowdon et al.

    Pre-school vision screening

    Health Technol Assess

    (1997)
  • S.L. Stewart-Brown et al.

    Evidence-based dilemmas in pre-school vision screening

    Arch Dis Child

    (1998)
  • J.S. Rahi et al.

    The future of preschool vision screening services in Britain

    BMJ

    (1997)
  • C. Williams et al.

    Future of preschool vision screening. Conclusions for or against services are invalid without appropriate research evidence

    BMJ

    (1998)
  • J. Lee et al.

    Future of preschool vision screening. Cost effectiveness of screening for amblyopia is a public health issue

    BMJ

    (1998)
  • A.R. Fielder

    Future of preschool vision screening. Review article did not separate review and implementation processes

    BMJ

    (1998)
  • G.W. Aylward

    Future of preschool vision screening. The existence of a service is not evidence of its value

    BMJ

    (1998)
  • J. Rahi et al.

    Authors’ reply

    BMJ

    (1998)
  • M.J. Moseley

    Preschool vision screeninga recent report calls for a halt

    Br J Ophthalmol

    (1998)
  • Cited by (47)

    • The Neuro-Ophthalmic Examination

      2018, Liu, Volpe, and Galetta's Neuro-Ophthalmology: Diagnosis and Management
    • Efficacy of a vision-screening tool for birth to 3 years early intervention programs

      2016, Journal of AAPOS
      Citation Excerpt :

      Of the patients included in the study, 85 of the 216 analyzed (39%) had documented visual pathway pathology. This result is not unexpected, because individuals with developmental disabilities tend to have a higher prevalence of vision related disorders.3 This further reinforces the need for an efficacious and cost-effective screening program for children with developmental disabilities in the birth to 3 years age group.

    • The possible association of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder with undiagnosed refractive errors

      2013, Journal of AAPOS
      Citation Excerpt :

      Most of these studies, however, are problematic because they were not performed under cycloplegia, unlike the present study. In contrast to the myopic child, the hypermetropic child may go undiagnosed.24-31 Hypermetropic children, compared with emmetropic children, have good visual acuity for far objects but must make an extra accommodative effort to see near objects.

    • Validation and cost-effectiveness of a home-based screening system for amblyopia

      2012, Ophthalmology
      Citation Excerpt :

      Although a variety of screening tests have aimed to identify vision problems at an earlier age, the testability rates generally were low in children younger than 3 years (for review),25 and this, combined with a lower participation rate and lack of cooperation with testing, means that the age of 3 years may be a better time for amblyopia screening. This time is still within the critical and sensitive period for vision development, and the older preschoolers tend to be more compliant with the prolonged and repetitive visual therapies for amblyopia, and thus achieve better outcomes.26 In summary, the home-based amblyopia screening system offers a simple, highly effective, and low-cost method of screening for amblyopia and amblyogenic risk factors.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    1

    Previously published in Pediatrics, 106:1105–1116, 2000. Reprinted with permission.

    10

    Current address for E. E. Hartmann, Nova Southeastern University, College of Optometry, Fort Lauderdale, FL.

    View full text