Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT:

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.

SUBMITTER: Sii S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8404433 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionNutritional challenges are common consequences of cancer, and they do not only occur in the hospital setting. They are also frequent after completion of treatment, and nutritional interventions in community-based post-treatment rehabilitation services are important. The first step towards initiating any nutritional intervention is to identify the individual in need hereof, but evidence is limited on the applicability of different nutrition screening and assessment tools in the post-treatment rehabilitation services. The aim is to systematically review and identify nutrition screening and assessment tools appropriate for use in patients with cancer and survivors of cancer in hospital or community-based healthcare settings.Methods and analysisIn this systematic review, the electronic databases PubMed, CINAHL Complete and Embase were searched systematically using comprehensive search strategies. Primary searches were carried out in August 2018 with updated searches performed in November 2019. Clinicaltrials.gov and PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews will be searched for additional relevant studies. Studies will be included if they validate a nutrition screening or assessment tool in adult patients with cancer or survivors of cancer. No restriction on publication date will be applied, and full-text articles in English, Danish, Norwegian and Swedish are eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers will independently conduct screening of search results, study selection, data extraction and quality assessment. Data will be synthesised narratively.Ethics and disseminationNo ethical approval is required. Results will be reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement and published in an international peer-reviewed journal. Furthermore, results will be presented in relevant research and clinical fora to facilitate transfer of results to clinical practice in benefit of patients.Prospero registration numberCRD42018096678.

Project description:ObjectiveTo synthesize and appraise economic evaluations of vision screening to detect vision impairment in children.MethodsLiterature searches were conducted on seven electronic databases, grey literature, and websites of agencies conducting health technology assessments. Studies were included if they (1) were full, comparative economic evaluations that used cost-utility, cost-benefit, cost-effectiveness, cost-consequence, or cost-analysis methods; (2) described screening services designed to detect amblyopia, strabismus, or uncorrected refractive errors in children under 6 years of age; and (3) published after 1994. High-quality studies were synthesized descriptively. Currencies were reported in 2019 Canadian dollars. Quality was assessed with the Pediatric Quality Appraisal Questionnaire (PQAQ).ResultsVision screening services were conducted by paid staff, volunteers, or health care professionals in schools or clinics. Thirteen studies were published from five countries: China (n = 1), United States (n = 4), United Kingdom (n = 1), Canada (n = 1), and Germany (n = 6). Analytical techniques included cost-utility/cost-effectiveness combination (n = 2), cost-effectiveness analysis (n = 7), cost-utility analysis (n = 1), cost-benefit analysis (n = 1), cost-consequence analysis (n = 1), and cost analysis (n = 1). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranged from C$1,056 to C$151,274 per additional case detected/prevented and from C$9,429 to C$30,254,703 per additional QALY gained, depending on the type of screening service and comparator. Six studies were determined to be of high quality.ConclusionVision screening to detect amblyopia for young children may be cost-effective compared with no screening if amblyopia reduced quality of life. Studies varied significantly in the type of screening services and comparators used. Methodological limitations were common. Future studies would be aided immensely by prospective studies on the impact of amblyopia on the health-related quality of life of young children and guidelines on the effective conduct of vision screening.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Robust diagnosis of dementia requires an understanding of the accuracy of the available diagnostic tests. Informant questionnaires are frequently used to assess for dementia in clinical practice. Recent systematic reviews have sought to establish the diagnostic test accuracy of various dementia informant screening tools. However, most reviews to date have focused on a single diagnostic tool and this does not address which tool is 'best'. A key aim of the overview of systematic reviews is to present a disparate evidence base in a single, easy to access platform. METHODS:We will conduct an overview of systematic reviews in which we 'review the systematic reviews' of diagnostic test accuracy studies evaluating informant questionnaires for dementia. As an overview of systematic reviews of test accuracy is a relatively novel approach, we will use this review to explore methods for visual representation of complex data, for highlighting evidence gaps and for indirect comparative analyses. We will create a list of informant tools by consulting with dementia experts. We will search 6 databases (EMBASE (OVID); Health and Psychosocial Instruments (OVID); Medline (OVID); CINAHL (EBSCO); PSYCHinfo (EBSCO) and the PROSPERO registry of review protocols) to identify systematic reviews that describe the diagnostic test accuracy of informant questionnaires for dementia. We will assess review quality using the AMSTAR-2 (Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews) and assess reporting quality using PRISMA-DTA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies) checklists. We will collate the identified reviews to create an 'evidence map' that highlights where evidence does and does not exist in relation to informant questionnaires. We will pool sensitivity and specificity data via meta-analysis to generate a diagnostic test accuracy summary statistic for each informant questionnaire. If data allow, we will perform a statistical comparison of the diagnostic test accuracy of each informant questionnaire using a network approach. DISCUSSION:Our overview of systematic reviews will provide a concise summary of the diagnostic test accuracy of informant tools and highlight areas where evidence is currently lacking in this regard. It will also apply network meta-analysis techniques to a new area.

Project description:BackgroundWith the accumulation of evidence regarding potential harms of cancer screening in recent years, researchers, policy-makers, and the public are becoming more critical of population-based cancer screening. Consequently, a high-quality cancer screening program should consider individuals’ values and preferences when determining recommendations. In cervical cancer screening, offering women autonomy is considered a “person-centered” approach to health care services; however, it may impact the effectiveness of the program should women choose to not participate. As part of a larger project to investigate women’s cervical screening preferences and correlates of these preferences, this systematic review will capture quantitative and qualitative investigations of women’s cervical screening preferences and the methods used to elicit them.Design and methodsThis mixed methods synthesis will use a thematic analysis approach to synthesize qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods evidence. This protocol describes the methods that will be used in this investigation. A search strategy has been developed with a health librarian and peer reviewed using PRESS. Based on this strategy, five databases and the gray literature will be searched for studies that meet the inclusion criteria. The quality of the included individual studies will be examined using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Three reviewers will extract data from the primary studies on the tools or instruments used to elicit women’s preferences regarding cervical cancer screening, theoretical frameworks used, outcomes measured, the outstanding themes from quantitative and qualitative evidence, and the identified preferences for cervical cancer screening. We will describe the relationships between study results and the study population, “intervention” (e.g., tool or instrument), and context. We will follow the PRISMA reporting guideline. We will compare findings across studies and between study methods (e.g., qualitative versus quantitative study designs). The strength of the synthesized findings will be assessed using the validated GRADE and CERQual tool.DiscussionThis review will inform the development of a tool to elicit women’s cervical screening preferences. Understanding the methods used to elicit women’s preferences and what is known about women’s cervical screening preferences will be useful for guideline developers who wish to incorporate a woman-centered approach specifically for cervical screening guidelines.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42016035737Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13643-016-0310-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.