Article Text
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.
- community child health
- paediatric ophthalmology
- information technology
- telemedicine
This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Supplementary materials
Supplementary Data
This web only file has been produced by the BMJ Publishing Group from an electronic file supplied by the author(s) and has not been edited for content.
Footnotes
MGT and SRR are joint senior authors.
Twitter @KuhtHelen, @MervynTh0mas, @OphthoReg
Contributors SS: concept, methodology, drafting of protocol, piloting of questionnaires, revision and final approval of manuscript. CSC: drafting of protocol (introduction) and critically reviewing manuscript. HK: critically reviewing manuscript. MT: supervision, critically reviewing protocol and manuscript. SRR: supervision, concept, methodology, peer-review of search strategy, questionnaires, critically reviewing protocol and manuscript.
Funding This work is funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). SRR is funded by a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Doctoral Fellowship Award ID: NIHR300155. MT is also supported by the NIHR (CL-2017-11-003) and the Ulverscroft foundation.
Disclaimer This paper presents independent research funded by the NIHR. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of, the Ulverscroft Foundation, the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.