Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2018 Feb 15;2(2):CD005023.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005023.pub3.

Vision screening for correctable visual acuity deficits in school-age children and adolescents

Jennifer R Evans  1 , Priya Morjaria, Christine Powell
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Vision screening for correctable visual acuity deficits in school-age children and adolescents

Jennifer R Evans et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: Although the benefits of vision screening seem intuitive, the value of such programmes in junior and senior schools has been questioned. In addition there exists a lack of clarity regarding the optimum age for screening and frequency at which to carry out screening.

Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of vision screening programmes carried out in schools to reduce the prevalence of correctable visual acuity deficits due to refractive error in school-age children.

Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2017, Issue 4); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov and the ICTRP. The date of the search was 3 May 2017.

Selection criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including cluster-randomised trials, that compared vision screening with no vision screening, or compared interventions to improve uptake of spectacles or efficiency of vision screening.

Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently screened search results and extracted data. Our pre-specified primary outcome was uncorrected, or suboptimally corrected, visual acuity deficit due to refractive error six months after screening. Pre-specified secondary outcomes included visual acuity deficit due to refractive error more than six months after screening, visual acuity deficit due to causes other than refractive error, spectacle wearing, quality of life, costs, and adverse effects. We graded the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.

Main results: We identified seven relevant studies. Five of these studies were conducted in China with one study in India and one in Tanzania. A total of 9858 children aged between 10 and 18 years were randomised in these studies, 8240 of whom (84%) were followed up between one and eight months after screening. Overall we judged the studies to be at low risk of bias. None of these studies compared vision screening for correctable visual acuity deficits with not screening.Two studies compared vision screening with the provision of free spectacles versus vision screening with no provision of free spectacles (prescription only). These studies provide high-certainty evidence that vision screening with provision of free spectacles results in a higher proportion of children wearing spectacles than if vision screening is accompanied by provision of a prescription only (risk ratio (RR) 1.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.34 to 1.90; 1092 participants). The studies suggest that if approximately 250 per 1000 children given vision screening plus prescription only are wearing spectacles at follow-up (three to six months) then 400 per 1000 (335 to 475) children would be wearing spectacles after vision screening and provision of free spectacles. Low-certainty evidence suggested better educational attainment in children in the free spectacles group (adjusted difference 0.11 in standardised mathematics score, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.21, 1 study, 2289 participants). Costs were reported in one study in Tanzania in 2008 and indicated a relatively low cost of screening and spectacle provision (low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of any important effect of provision of free spectacles on uncorrected visual acuity (mean difference -0.02 logMAR (95% CI adjusted for clustering -0.04 to 0.01) between the groups at follow-up (moderate-certainty evidence). Other pre-specified outcomes of this review were not reported.Two studies explored the effect of an educational intervention in addition to vision screening on spectacle wear. There was moderate-certainty evidence of little apparent effect of the education interventions investigated in these studies in addition to vision screening, compared to vision screening alone for spectacle wearing (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.31, 1 study, 3177 participants) or related outcome spectacle purchase (odds ratio (OR) 0.84, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.31, 1 study, 4448 participants). Other pre-specified outcomes of this review were not reported.Three studies compared vision screening with ready-made spectacles versus vision screening with custom-made spectacles. These studies provide moderate-certainty evidence of no clinically meaningful differences between the two types of spectacles. In one study, mean logMAR acuity in better and worse eye was similar between groups: mean difference (MD) better eye 0.03 logMAR, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.05; 414 participants; MD worse eye 0.06 logMAR, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.08; 414 participants). There was high-certainty evidence of no important difference in spectacle wearing (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.05; 1203 participants) between the two groups and moderate-certainty evidence of no important difference in quality of life between the two groups (the mean quality-of-life score measured using the National Eye Institute Refractive Error Quality of Life scale 42 was 1.42 better (1.04 worse to 3.90 better) in children with ready-made spectacles (1 study of 188 participants). Although none of the studies reported on costs directly, ready-made spectacles are cheaper and may represent considerable cost-savings for vision screening programmes in lower income settings. There was low-certainty evidence of no important difference in adverse effects between the two groups. Adverse effects were reported in one study and were similar between groups. These included blurred vision, distorted vision, headache, disorientation, dizziness, eyestrain and nausea.

Authors' conclusions: Vision screening plus provision of free spectacles improves the number of children who have and wear the spectacles they need compared with providing a prescription only. This may lead to better educational outcomes. Health education interventions, as currently devised and tested, do not appear to improve spectacle wearing in children. In lower-income settings, ready-made spectacles may provide a useful alternative to expensive custom-made spectacles.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Jennifer Evans is an investigator of one of the included studies Morjaria 2016. Priya Morjaria is an investigator of one of the included studies Morjaria 2016. Christine Powell: none

Figures

1
1
Study flow diagram
2
2
Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study
3
3
Forest plot of comparison: 1 Free glasses compared with prescription only, outcome: 1.1 Spectacle wearing.
4
4
Forest plot of comparison: 2 Ready‐made versus custom‐made spectacles, outcome: 2.1 Spectacle wearing.
1.1
1.1. Analysis
Comparison 1 Free glasses compared with prescription only, Outcome 1 Spectacle wearing.
2.1
2.1. Analysis
Comparison 2 Ready‐made versus custom‐made spectacles, Outcome 1 Spectacle wearing.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Update of

References

References to studies included in this review

Congdon 2011 {published data only}
    1. Congdon N, Li L, Zhang M, Yang A, Gao Y, Griffiths S, et al. Randomized, controlled trial of an educational intervention to promote spectacle use in rural China: the see well to learn well study. Ophthalmology 2011;118(12):2343‐50. - PubMed
Morjaria 2016 {published data only}
    1. Morjaria P, Evans J, Murali K, Gilbert C. Spectacle wear among children in a school‐based program for ready‐made vs custom‐made spectacles in India: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Ophthalmology 2017;135(6):527‐33. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Morjaria P, Murali K, Evans J, Gilbert C. Spectacle wearing in children randomised to ready‐made or custom spectacles, and potential cost savings to programmes: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials 2016;17(1):36. - PMC - PubMed
RECS 2009 {published data only}
    1. Zeng Y, Keay L, He M, Mai J, Munoz B, Brady C, et al. A randomized, clinical trial evaluating ready‐made and custom spectacles delivered via a school‐based screening program in China. Ophthalmology 2009;116(10):1839‐45. - PMC - PubMed
SIL 2014 {published data only}
    1. Ma X, Congdon N, Yi H, Zhou Z, Pang X, Meltzer ME, et al. Safety of spectacles for children's vision: a cluster‐randomized controlled trial. American Journal of Ophthalmology 2015;160(5):897‐904. - PubMed
    1. Ma X, Zhou Z, Yi H, Pang X, Shi Y, Chen Q, et al. Effect of providing free glasses on children's educational outcomes in China: cluster randomized controlled trial. BMJ 2014;349:g5740. [DOI: 10.1136/bmj.g5740] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
SIL II 2015 {published data only}
    1. Yi H, Zhang H, Ma X, Zhang L, Wang X, Jin L. Impact of free glasses and a teacher incentive on children's use of eyeglasses: a cluster‐randomized controlled trial. American Journal of Ophthalmology 2015;160(5):889‐96. - PubMed
WEAR 2017 {published data only}
    1. Zhou Z, Chen T, Jin L, Zheng D, Chen S, He M, et al. Self‐refraction, ready‐made glasses and quality of life among rural myopic Chinese children: a non‐inferiority randomized trial. Acta Ophthalmology 2017;95(6):567‐75. - PubMed
Wedner 2008 {published data only}
    1. Wedner S, Masanja H, Bowman R, Todd J, Bowman R, Gilbert C. Two strategies for correcting refractive errors in school students in Tanzania: randomised comparison, with implications for screening programmes. British Journal of Ophthalmology 2008;92(1):19‐24. - PubMed

References to studies excluded from this review

Cross 1985 {published data only}
    1. Cross AW. Health screening in schools. Journal of Pediatrics 1985;107(4):487‐94. - PubMed
Gole 2001 {published data only}
    1. Gole G. Refractive errors in childhood and adolescence. Medicine Today 2001;2(10):87‐9.
Li 2013 {published data only}
    1. Li SM, Li SY, Liu LR, Guo JY, Chen W, Wang NL, et al. Full correction and undercorrection of myopia evaluation trial: design and baseline data of a randomized, controlled, double‐blind trial. Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology 2013;41(4):329‐38. - PubMed
Pärssinen 2014 {published data only}
    1. Pärssinen O, Kauppinen M, Viljanen A. The progression of myopia from its onset at age 8‐12 to adulthood and the influence of heredity and external factors on myopic progression. A 23‐year follow‐up study. Acta Ophthalmologica 2014;92(8):730‐9. - PubMed
Pärssinen 2015 {published data only}
    1. Pärssinen O, Kauppinen M, Viljanen A. Astigmatism among myopics and its changes from childhood to adult age: a 23‐year follow‐up study. Acta Ophthalmologica 2015;93(3):276‐83. - PubMed
Priya 2015 {published data only}
    1. Priya A, Veena K, Thulasiraj R, Fredrick M, Venkatesh R, Sengupta S, et al. Vision screening by teachers in Southern Indian schools: testing a new "all class teacher" model. Ophthalmic Epidemiology 2015;22(1):60‐5. - PubMed
Terveen 2015 {published data only}
    1. Terveen DC, Moser JM, Spencer TS. Results of a pediatric vision screening program in western South Dakota. South Dakota Medicine 2015;68(3):111‐3. - PubMed
Wei 2016 {published data only}
    1. Wei N, Tong ML, Wang J, Wu GQ, Wu XX, Wang YT, et al. Influence of eye healthcare information teaching for the visual development of children under "combination of medicine and education". International Eye Science 2016;16(8):1531‐3.
Yamada 2004 {published data only}
    1. Yamada Y. Myopia in primary school children. Japanese Journal of Clinical Ophthalmology 2004;58(2):125‐9.

References to studies awaiting assessment

Wang 2017 {published data only}
    1. Wang X, Congdon N, Ma Y, Hu M, Zhou Y, Liao W, et al. Cluster‐randomized controlled trial of the effects of free glasses on purchase of children's glasses in China: The PRICE (Potentiating Rural Investment in Children's Eyecare) study. PLoS One 2017;12:e0187808. - PMC - PubMed

Additional references

Altman 1996
    1. Altman DG, Bland JM. Detecting skewness from summary information. BMJ 1996;313(7066):1200. - PMC - PubMed
Banks 1980
    1. Banks MS. Infant refraction and accommodation. International Ophthalmology Clinics 1980;20(1):205‐32. - PubMed
Canoll 1982
    1. Canoll JP. On emmetropisation. Journal of Theoretical Biology 1982;95(1):135‐44. - PubMed
Congdon 2008
    1. Congdon N, Zheng M, Sharma A, Choi K, Song Y, Zhang M, et al. Prevalence and determinants of spectacle nonwear among rural Chinese secondary schoolchildren: the Xichang Pediatric Refractive Error Study Report 3. Archives of Ophthalmology 2008;126(12):1717‐23. - PubMed
Covidence [Computer program]
    1. Veritas Health Innovation. Covidence. Melbourne, Australia: Veritas Health Innovation, accessed 14 November 2017.
Deeks 2011
    1. Deeks JJ, Higgins JP, Altman DG, editor(s). Chapter 9: Analysing data and undertaking meta‐analyses. In: Higgins JP, Green S, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from handbook.cochrane.org.
Dirani 2010
    1. Dirani M, Zhang X, Goh LK, Young TL, Lee P, Saw SM. The role of vision in academic school performance. Ophthalmic Epidemiol 2010;17:18‐24. - PMC - PubMed
Dudovitz 2016
    1. Dudovitz RN, Izadpanah N, Chung PJ, Slusser W. Parent, teacher, and student perspectives on how corrective lenses improve child wellbeing and school function. Maternal and Child Health Journal 2016;20:974‐83. - PMC - PubMed
Ehrlich 1997
    1. Ehrlich DL, Braddick OJ, Atkinson J, Anker S, Weeks F, Hartley T, et al. Infant emmetropisation: longitudinal changes in refraction components from nine to twenty months of age. Optometry and Vision Science 1997;74(10):822‐43. - PubMed
Glanville 2006
    1. Glanville JM, Lefebvre C, Miles JN, Camosso‐Stefinovic J. How to identify randomized controlled trials in MEDLINE: ten years on. Journal of the Medical Library Association 2006;94(2):130‐6. - PMC - PubMed
Goldstand 2005
    1. Goldstand S, Koslowe K C, Parush S. Vision, visual‐information processing, and academic performance among seventh‐grade schoolchildren: a more significant relationship than we thought?. American Journal of Occupational Therapy 2005;59:377‐89. - PubMed
Hays 2003
    1. Hays RD, Mangione CM, Ellwein L, Lindblad AS, Spritzer KL, McDonnell PJ. Psychometric properties of the National Eye Institute‐Refractive Error Quality of Life instrument. Ophthalmology 2003;110(12):2292‐301. - PubMed
Higgins 2003
    1. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta‐analyses. BMJ 2003;327:557‐60. - PMC - PubMed
Higgins 2011a
    1. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Sterne JAC, editor(s). Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JP, Green S, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from handbook.cochrane.org.
Higgins 2011b
    1. Higgins JP, Deeks JJ, Altman DG, editor(s). Chapter 16: Special topics in statistics. In: Higgins JP, Green S, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from handbook.cochrane.org.
Holden 2016
    1. Holden BA, Fricke TR, Wilson DA, Jong M, Naidoo KS, Sankaridurg P, et al. Global prevalence of myopia and high myopia and temporal trends from 2000 through 2050. Ophthalmology 2016;123:1036‐42. - PubMed
Hopkins 2013
    1. Hopkins S, Sampson GP, Hendicott P, Wood JM. Review of guidelines for children's vision screenings. Clinical and Exprimental Optometry 2013;96(5):443‐9. - PubMed
Hung 1995
    1. Hung L, Crawford M, Smith E. Spectacle lenses alter eye growth and refractive status of young monkeys. Nature Medicine 1995;1(8):761‐5. - PubMed
Jensen 1995
    1. Jensen H. Myopia in teenagers. Acta Ophthalmologica Scandinavica 1995;73(5):389‐93. - PubMed
Jonas 2017
    1. Jonas DE, Amick HR, Wallace IF, Feltner C, Vander Schaaf EB, Brown CL, et al. Vision screening in children aged 6 months to 5 years: evidence report and systematic review for the US preventive services task force. JAMA 2017;318(9):845‐58. - PubMed
Kvarnstrom 2001
    1. Kvarnstrom G, Jakobson P, Lennerstrand G. Visual screening of Swedish children: an ophthalmological evaluation. Acta Ophthalmologica Scandinavia 2001;79(3):240‐4. - PubMed
Leone 2010
    1. Leone JF, Mitchell P, Morgan IG, Kifley A, Rose KA. Use of visual acuity to screen for significant refractive errors in adolescents: is it reliable?. Archives of Ophthalmology 2010;128(7):894‐9. - PubMed
Limburg 1999
    1. Limburg H, Kansara HT, D'Souza S. Results of school eye screening of 5.4 million children in India‐a five‐year follow‐up study. Acta Ophthalmologica Scandinavica 1999;77(3):310‐4. - PubMed
Logan 2004
    1. Logan NS, Gilmartin B. School vision screening, ages 5‐16 years: the evidence‐base for content, provision and efficacy. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics 2004;24(6):481‐92. - PubMed
Ma 2014
    1. Ma X, Zhou Z, Yi H, Pang X, Shi Y, Chen Q, et al. Effect of providing free glasses on children's educational outcomes in China: cluster randomized controlled trial. BMJ 2014;349:g5740. - PMC - PubMed
Maples 2003
    1. Maples WC. Visual factors that significantly impact academic performance. Optometry 2003;74:35‐49. - PubMed
Mathers 2010
    1. Mathers M, Keyes M, Wright M. A review of the evidence on the effectiveness of children's vision screening. Child: Care, Health and Development 2010;36(6):756‐80. - PubMed
McCullough 2016
    1. McCullough SJ, O'Donoghue L, Saunders KJ. Six year refractive change among white children and young adults: evidence for significant increase in myopia among white UK children. PLoS One 2016;11:e0146332. - PMC - PubMed
Morgan 2017
    1. Morgan IG, French AN, Ashby RS, Guo X, Ding X, He M, et al. The epidemics of myopia: aetiology and prevention. Progress in Retinal and Eye Research 2017 September 23 [Epub ahead of print]. - PubMed
O'Donoghue 2012
    1. O'Donoghue L, Rudnicka AR, McClelland JF, Logan NS, Saunders KJ. Visual acuity measures do not reliably detect childhood refractive error‐‐an epidemiological study. PLoS One 2012;7:e34441. - PMC - PubMed
Ohio 2004
    1. Ohio Department of Health Hearing/Vision Screening for Children. www.odh.state.oh.us/odhprograms/hvscr/hvscr1.htm (accessed 3 August 2004).
Pearce 2014
    1. Pearce MG. Clinical outcomes following the dispensing of ready‐made and recycled spectacles: a systematic literature review. Clinical & Experimental Optometry 2014;97:225‐33. - PubMed
PHE 2017
    1. Public Health England (PHE). New guidance to improve vision screening for young children. www.gov.uk/government/news/new‐guidance‐to‐improve‐vision‐screening‐for‐... accessed 18 January 2018.
Rahi 2001
    1. Rahi JS, Williams C, Bedford H, Elliman D. Screening and surveillance for ophthalmic disorders and visual deficits in children in the United Kingdom. British Journal of Ophthalmology 2001;85(3):257‐9. - PMC - PubMed
Rahi 2002
    1. Rahi JS, Dezateux C. Improving the detection of childhood visual problems and eye disorders. Lancet 2002;359:1083‐4. - PubMed
Resnikoff 2001
    1. Resnikoff S, Pararajasegaram R. Blindness prevention programmes: past, present, and future. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 2001;79(3):222‐6. - PMC - PubMed
Resnikoff 2008
    1. Resnikoff S, Pascolini D, Mariotti SP, Pokharel GP. Global magnitude of visual impairment caused by uncorrected refractive errors in 2004. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 2008;86:63‐70. - PMC - PubMed
Review Manager 2014 [Computer program]
    1. Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager 5 (Revman 5). Version 5.3. Copenhagen: Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014.
Rudnicka 2016
    1. Rudnicka AR, Kapetanakis VV, Wathern AK, Logan NS, Gilmartin B, Whincup PH, et al. Global variations and time trends in the prevalence of childhood myopia, a systematic review and quantitative meta‐analysis: implications for aetiology and early prevention. British Journal of Ophthalmology 2016;100(7):882‐90. - PMC - PubMed
Schünemann 2011
    1. Schünemann HJ, Oxman AD, Higgins JPT, Vist GE, Glasziou P, Guyatt GH. Chapter 11: Presenting results and ‘Summary of findings' tables. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (editors), Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from handbook.cochrane.org.
Sharma 2012
    1. Sharma A, Congdon N, Patel M, Gilbert C. School‐based approaches to the correction of refractive error in children. Surveys in Ophthalmology 2012;57(3):272‐83. - PubMed
Sorsby 1964
    1. Sorsby A. Modern Ophthalmology. Vol. 3, London: Butterworth, 1964.
Wallace 2017
    1. Wallace DK, Morse CL, Melia M, Sprunger DT, Repka MX, Lee KA, et al. Pediatric eye evaluations preferred practice pattern: I. Vision screening in the primary care and community setting; II. Comprehensive ophthalmic examination. Ophthalmology 2017;125(1):P184‐P227. - PubMed
Walline 2011
    1. Walline JJ, Lindsley K, Vedula SS, Cotter SA, Mutti DO, Twelker JD. Interventions to slow progression of myopia in children. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2011, Issue 12. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004916.pub3] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Wedner 2000
    1. Wedner SH, Ross DA, Balira R, Kaji L, Foster A. A prevalence survey of eye diseases in primary school children in a rural area of Tanzania. British Journal of Ophthalmology 2000;84(11):1291‐7. - PMC - PubMed
Wedner 2003
    1. Wedner SH, Dineen B. Refractive errors. Tropical Doctor 2003;33:207‐9. - PubMed
WHO 2002
    1. WHO Refractive Error Working Group. Report on strategic planning meeting of refractive error working group. www.iapb.org/about‐iapb/iapb‐work‐groups/refractive‐error‐work‐group/ (accessed 10 May 2006).
Yap 1994
    1. Yap M, Wu M, Wang SH, Lee FL, Liu ZM. Environmental factors and refractive errors in Chinese school children. Clinical and Experimental Optometry 1994;77(1):8‐14.

References to other published versions of this review

Powell 2004
    1. Powell C, Wedner S. Screening for correctable visual acuity deficits in school‐age children and adolescents. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2004, Issue 4. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005023] - DOI - PubMed
Powell 2009
    1. Powell C, Wedner S, Hatt SR. Vision screening for correctable visual acuity deficits in school‐age children and adolescents. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2009, Issue 3. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005023.pub2] - DOI - PubMed

Publication types