Cribaje (screening) de la comunidad para la deficiencia visual en las personas mayores
Information
- DOI:
- https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001054.pub3Copy DOI
- Database:
-
- Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
- Version published:
-
- 20 February 2018see what's new
- Type:
-
- Intervention
- Stage:
-
- Review
- Cochrane Editorial Group:
-
Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group
- Copyright:
-
- Copyright © 2018 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Article metrics
Altmetric:
Cited by:
Authors
Contributions of authors
Conceiving the idea for the review: SI
Developing the review: LS
Undertaking manual searches for trials: LS
Assessing quality of trials: ELC, LS, JE
Extracting data: ELC, LS, JE
Analysing data: ELC, LS, JE
Writing the review: ELC, LS, JE
Advising on the review: LS, JE
Updating the review: ELC, LS, JE
Sources of support
Internal sources
-
London Academic Training Scheme, UK.
External sources
-
Medical Research Council, UK.
-
National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), UK.
-
Richard Wormald, Co‐ordinating Editor for Cochrane Eyes and Vision (CEV) acknowledges financial support for his CEV research sessions from the Department of Health through the award made by the NIHR to Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and UCL Institute of Ophthalmology for a Specialist Biomedical Research Centre for Ophthalmology.
-
This review update was supported by the NIHR, via Cochrane Infrastructure funding to the CEV UK editorial base.
The views and opinions expressed therein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Systematic Reviews Programme, NIHR, NHS or the Department of Health.
-
Declarations of interest
None known.
Acknowledgements
-
We are very appreciative to Professor Steve Iliffe (SI), for his contributions as author of the previous version of this review.
-
We would like to thank all the study authors who responded to requests for additional information. The following provided unpublished data used in this review: R McEwan; N Vetter; E van Rossum; E Wagner; J Wang; and R Cumming.
-
We are grateful to Astrid Fletcher, Catey Bunce, Tasanee Braithwaite and Kristina Lindsley for peer review comments on this review.
-
The editorial team of the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group developed and executed the electronic searches. We thank Anupa Shah and Iris Gordon for their assistance with the review process.
Version history
| Published | Title | Stage | Authors | Version |
| 2018 Feb 20 | Community screening for visual impairment in older people | Review | Emily L Clarke, Jennifer R Evans, Liam Smeeth | |
| 2006 Jul 19 | Community screening for visual impairment in the elderly | Review | Liam L Smeeth, Steve Iliffe | |
| 1998 Oct 26 | Community screening for visual impairment in the elderly | Review | Liam L Smeeth, Steve Iliffe | |
Differences between protocol and review
We made some changes because of updated Cochrane guidance (methods.cochrane.org/mecir).
-
Assessment of risk of bias (MECIR C52 to C60).
-
Grading the certainty of the evidence using GRADE (MECIR C74, C75).
-
We have amended the inclusion criteria to make it clear that we have excluded trials of multi‐component screening that did not consider the impact of screening on vision outcomes (C40).
-
Searches for the 2017 update now include searching the ISRCTN registry, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). The UK Clinical Trials Gateway and PubMed are no longer being searched; (MECIR C27).
-
we compared fixed‐effect and random‐effects models to test our assumption as to the model required (C71).
We did not do some planned analyses because of lack of data.
-
We planned sensitivity analyses to assess the effects of including or excluding trials of different quality. We did not identify any trials at high risk of bias in any domain so did not do this planned sensitivity analysis.
The protocol specified the odds ratio but we have calculated the risk ratio which is more easily interpreted.
As a result of peer review comments, we performed a post hoc sensitivity analysis excluding studies that did not directly refer patients to eye specialists.
We also added in a sensitivity analysis for one analysis which included a cluster randomised trial for which we did not have adjusted estimates.
Keywords
MeSH
Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) Keywords
Medical Subject Headings Check Words
Aged; Humans;
PICOs
Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
Comparison 1 Vision screening as part of multi‐component screening package versus no vision screening (standard care), Outcome 1 Not seeing well (as defined by each trial).
| Outcome or subgroup title | No. of studies | No. of participants | Statistical method | Effect size |
| 1 Not seeing well (as defined by each trial) Show forest plot | 6 | 4522 | Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI) | 1.05 [0.97, 1.14] |
