Amblyopia treatment outcomes after preschool screening v school entry screening: Observational data from a prospective cohort study

British Journal of Ophthalmology

Volumn 87, Issue 8, 2003, Pages 988-993

  Williams, C ^a,b   Northstone, K ^a   Harrad, R A ^c   Sparrow, J M ^b   Harvey, I ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

^b BRISTOL EYE HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AMBLYOPIA; ARTICLE; BIRTH; CHILD; CLINICAL OBSERVATION; COHORT ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEDICAL RECORD; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MONOCULAR VISION; ORTHOPTICS; PHOTOPATCH TEST; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; SCHOOL; SCREENING; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; TREATMENT OUTCOME; UNITED KINGDOM; VISION TEST; VISUAL ACUITY;

AGE FACTORS; AMBLYOPIA; CHILD; CHILD, PRESCHOOL; ENGLAND; FEMALE; HUMANS; LONGITUDINAL STUDIES; MALE; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; STATISTICS; TREATMENT OUTCOME; VISION SCREENING; VISUAL ACUITY;

EID: 0041705017     PISSN: 00071161     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bjo.87.8.988     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Wiesel TN. Postnatal development of the visual cortex and the influence of the environment. Nature 1982;299:582-91.
2. Snowdon S, Stewart-Brown S. Preschool vision screening: results of a systematic review. York: NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, 1997 April 1997. CRD Report 9.
3. Harrad RA, McKee SP. Preschool vision screening: results of a systematic review. Surv Ophthalmol 1999;43:374-6.
4. Rahi JS, Dezateux C. Editorial: The future of preschool vision screening services in Britain. BMJ 1997;315:1247-8.
5. Fielder A. Review article did not separate review and implementation processes (letter). BMJ 1998;316:938.
6. Rahi J, Williams C, Bedford H, et al. Screening and surveillance for ophthalmic disorders and visual deficits in children in the United Kingdom. Br J Ophthalmol 2001;85:257-9.
7. De Vries J. Anisometropia in children: analysis of a hospital population. Br J Ophthalmol 1985;69:504-7.
8. Epelbaum M, Milleret C, Buisseret P, et al. The sensitive period for strabismic amblyopia in humans. Ophthalmology 1993;100:323-7.
9. Flynn J, Woodruff G Thompson J, et al. The therapy of amblypopia: an analysis comparing the results of amblyopia therapy utilizing two pooled data sets. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc 1999;97:373-90.
10. Kutschke PJ, Scott WE, Keech RV. Anisometropic amblyopia. Ophthalmology 1991;98:258-63.
11. Hiscox F, Strong N, Thompson JR, et al. Occlusion for amblyopia: a comprhensive survey of outcome. Eye 1992;6:300-4.
12. Williams C, Northstone K, Harrad R, et al, ALSPAC Study Team. Amblyopia treatment outcomes after screening before 3 years vs. at 3 years of age-follow-up from a randomised trial. BMJ 2002;324:1549-51.
13. http://www.alspac.bris.ac.uk/Default.shtm
14. Golding J, Pembrey M, Jones R, et al. ALSPAC - the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children. I. Study methodology. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2001;15:74-87.
15. Williams C, Harrad RA, Harvey I, et al. Screening for amblyopia in preschool children: results of a population-based, randomized controlled trial. Ophthalmic Epidemiol 2001;8:279-95.
16. Attebo K, Mitchell P, Cumming R, et al. Prevalence and causes of amblyopia in an adult population. Ophthalmology 1998;105:154-9.
17. Rahi JS, Logan S, Borja MC, et al. Prediction of improved vision in the amblyopic eye after visual loss in the non-amblyopic eye. Lancet 2002;360:621-2.
18. Rahi J, Logan S, Timms C, et al. Risk, causes, and outcomes of visual impairment after loss of vision in the non-amblyopic eye: a population-based study. Lancet 2002;360:597-602.
19. Bray L, Clarke M, Jarvis S, et al. Preschool vision screening: a prospective comparative evaluation. Eye 1996;10:714-18.
20. Williamson T, Andrews R, Dutton G, et al. Assessment of an inner city visual screening programme for preschool children. Br J Ophthalmol 1995;79:1068-73.
21. Schlichtherle S, Gandjour A, Neugebauer A, et al. The cost-effectiveness of screening strategies for amblyopia: a preliminary report. Strabismus 2000;8:291-5.
22. Konig HH, Barry JC. Economic evaluation of different methods of screening for amblyopia in kindergarten. Pediatrics 2002;109:e59.
23. Konig HH, Barry JC, Leidl R, et al. Cost-effectiveness of orthoptic screening in kindergarten: a decision-analytic model. Strabismus 2000;8:79-90.
24. Konig HH, Barry JC, Leidl R, et al. Economic evaluation of orthoptic screening: results of a field study in 121 german kindergartens. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2002;43:3209-15.
25. Keech RV, Kutschke PJ. Upper age limit for the development of amblyopia. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus 1995;32:89-93.
26. Hirai H, Nishino J, Saishin M, et al. Necessity for and problems with refractometry for mass vision screening in school children. Folia Ophthalmol Jap 1995;46:1172-5.
27. Miller JM, Harvey EM, Dobson V. Visual acuity screening versus noncycloplegic autorefraction screening for astigmatism in Native American preschool children. J Aapos 1999;3:160-5.
28. Miller JM, Dobson V, Harvey EM, et al. Comparison of preschool vision screening methods in a population with a high prevalence of astigmatism. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2001;42:917-24.
29. Hall DB, Elliman D. Health for all children. 4th ed. Oxford: OUP, 2003.
30. http://www.doh.gov.uk/nsc/index.htm
31. Wormald RPL. Preschool vision screening in Cornwall: performance indicators of community orthoptists. Arch Dis Child 1991;66:917-20.
32. Bolger PG, Stewart-Brown SL, Newcombe E, et al. Vision screening in preschool children: comparison of orthoptists and clinical medical officers as primary screeners. BMJ 1991;303:1291-4.