U.S. Preventive Services Task Force

Recommendation Statement

Screening for Visual Impairment in Children Younger Than Five Years: Recommendation Statement



FREE PREVIEW Log in or buy this issue to read the full article. AAFP members and paid subscribers get free access to all articles. Subscribe now.


FREE PREVIEW Subscribe or buy this issue. AAFP members and paid subscribers get free access to all articles.

Am Fam Physician. 2005 Jan 15;71(2):333-336.

This clinical content conforms to AAFP criteria for evidence-based continuing medical education (EB CME). EB CME is clinical content presented with practice recommendations supported by evidence that has been systematically reviewed by an AAFP-approved source. The practice recommendations in this activity are available online at http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/uspstf/uspsvisn.htm.

This statement summarizes the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation on screening for visual impairment in children younger than five years and the supporting evidence and updates the 1996 recommendations contained in the Guide to Clinical Preventive Services, second edition.1 In 1996, the USPSTF recommended vision screening for amblyopia and strabismus in all children before they enter school (B recommendation).1 Since then, the USPSTF criteria to rate the strength of the evidence have changed.2  Therefore, this recommendation statement has been updated and revised based on the current USPSTF methodology and rating of the strength of the evidence. Explanations of the ratings and of the strength of overall evidence are given in Tables 1 and 2, respectively. The complete information on which this statement is based, including evidence tables and references, is available in the systematic evidence review3 and in the update of the evidence4 on this topic, available through the USPSTF Web site (http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org). The recommendation statement and update of the evidence also are available in print from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Publications Clearinghouse (telephone, 800-358-9295; e-mail, ahrqpubs@ahrq.gov). The recommendation also is posted on the Web site of the National Guideline Clearing-house (http://www.guideline.gov).

This recommendation statement was first published in Ann Fam Med 2004;2:263–6.

TABLE 1

USPSTF Recommendations and Ratings

The USPSTF grades its recommendations according to one of five classifications (A, B, C, D, or I) reflecting the strength of evidence and magnitude of net benefit (benefits minus harms).

A.

The USPSTF strongly recommends that clinicians provide [the service] to eligible patients.The USPSTF found good evidence that [the service] improves important health outcomes and concludes that benefits substantially outweigh harms.

B.

The USPSTF recommends that clinicians provide [the service] to eligible patients.The USPSTF found at least fair evidence that [the service] improves important health outcomes and concludes that benefits outweigh harms.

C.

The USPSTF makes no recommendation for or against routine provision of [the service].The USPSTF found at least fair evidence that [the service] can improve health outcomes but concludes that the balance of benefits and harms is too close to justify a general recommendation.

D.

The USPSTF recommends against routinely providing [the service] to asymptomatic patients.The USPSTF found at least fair evidence that [the service] is ineffective or that harms outweigh benefits.

I.

The USPSTF concludes that the evidence is insufficient to recommend for or against routinely providing [the service].Evidence that [the service] is effective is lacking, of poor quality, or conflicting, and the balance of benefits and harms cannot be determined.


USPSTF = U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

TABLE 1   USPSTF Recommendations and Ratings

View Table

TABLE 1

USPSTF Recommendations and Ratings

The USPSTF grades its recommendations according to one of five classifications (A, B, C, D, or I) reflecting the strength of evidence and magnitude of net benefit (benefits minus harms).

A.

The USPSTF strongly recommends that clinicians provide [the service] to eligible patients.The USPSTF found good evidence that [the service] improves important health outcomes and concludes that benefits substantially outweigh harms.

B.

The USPSTF recommends that clinicians provide [the service] to eligible patients.The USPSTF found at least fair evidence that [the service] improves important health outcomes and concludes that benefits outweigh harms.

C.

The USPSTF makes no recommendation for or against routine provision of [the service].The USPSTF found at least fair evidence that [the service] can improve health outcomes but concludes that the balance of benefits and harms is too close to justify a general recommendation.

D.

The USPSTF recommends against routinely providing [the service] to asymptomatic patients.The USPSTF found at least fair evidence that [the service] is ineffective or that harms outweigh benefits.

I.

The USPSTF concludes that the evidence is insufficient to recommend for or against routinely providing [the service].Evidence that [the service] is effective is lacking, of poor quality, or conflicting, and the balance of benefits and harms cannot be determined.


USPSTF = U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

TABLE 2

USPSTF Strength of Overall Evidence

The USPSTF grades the quality of the overall evidence for a service on a three-point scale (good, fair, or poor).

Good:

Evidence includes consistent results from well-designed, well-conducted studies in representative populations that directly assess effects on health outcomes.

Fair:

Evidence is sufficient to determine effects on health outcomes, but the strength of the evidence is limited by the number, quality, or consistency of the individual studies; generalizability to routine practice; or indirect nature of the evidence on health outcomes.

Poor:

Evidence is insufficient to assess the effects on health outcomes because of limited number or power of studies, important flaws in their design or conduct, gaps in the chain of evidence, or lack of information on important health outcomes.


USPSTF = U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

TABLE 2   USPSTF Strength of Overall Evidence

View Table

TABLE 2

USPSTF Strength of Overall Evidence

The USPSTF grades the quality of the overall evidence for a service on a three-point scale (good, fair, or poor).

Good:

Evidence includes consistent results from well-designed, well-conducted studies in representative populations that directly assess effects on health outcomes.

Fair:

Evidence is sufficient to determine effects on health outcomes, but the strength of the evidence is limited by the number, quality, or consistency of the individual studies; generalizability to routine practice; or indirect nature of the evidence on health outcomes.

Poor:

Evidence is insufficient to assess the effects on health outcomes because of limited number or power of studies, important flaws in their design or conduct, gaps in the chain of evidence, or lack of information on important health outcomes.


USPSTF = U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Summary of Recommendation

• The USPSTF recommends screening to detect amblyopia, strabismus, and defects in visual acuity in children younger than five years. B recommendation.

The USPSTF found no direct evidence that screening for visual impairment in children leads to improved visual acuity. However, the USPSTF found fair evidence that screening tests have reasonable accuracy in identifying strabismus, amblyopia, and refractive error in children with these conditions; that more intensive screening compared with usual screening leads to improved visual acuity; and that treatment of strabismus and amblyopia can improve visual acuity and reduce long-term amblyopia. The USPSTF found no evidence of harms for screening, judged the potential for harms to be small, and concluded that the benefits of screening are likely to outweigh any potential harms.

Clinical Considerations

• The most common causes of visual impairment in children are amblyopia and its risk factors, and refractive error not associated with amblyopia. Amblyopia refers to reduced visual acuity without a detectable organic lesion of the eye and is usually associated with amblyogenic risk factors that interfere with normal binocular vision, such as strabismus (ocular misalignment), anisometropia (a large difference in refractive power between the eyes), cataract (lens opacity), and ptosis (eyelid drooping). Refractive error not associated with amblyopia principally includes myopia (nearsightedness) and hyperopia (farsightedness); both remain correctable regardless of the age at detection.

• Various tests are used widely in the United States to identify visual defects in children, and the choice of tests is influenced by the child’s age. During the first year of life, strabismus can be assessed by the cover test and the Hirschberg light reflex test. Screening children younger than three years for visual acuity is more challenging than screening older children and typically requires testing by specially trained personnel. Newer automated techniques can be used to test these children. Photoscreening can detect amblyogenic risk factors such as strabismus, significant refractive error, and media opacities; however, photoscreening cannot detect amblyopia.

• Traditional vision testing requires a cooperative, verbal child and cannot be performed reliably until ages three to four years. In children older than three years, stereopsis (the ability of both eyes to function together) can be assessed with the Random Dot E test or Titmus Fly Stereotest; visual acuity can be assessed by tests such as the HOTV chart, Lea symbols, or the tumbling E. Some of these tests have better test characteristics than others.

• Based on a review of current evidence, the USP-STF was unable to determine the optimal screening tests, periodicity of screening, or technical proficiency required of the screening physician. Based on expert opinion, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommends the following vision screening be performed at all well-child visits starting in the newborn period to three years: ocular history, vision assessment, external inspection of the eyes and lids, ocular motility assessment, pupil examination, and red reflex examination. For children aged three to five years, the AAP recommends the aforementioned screening in addition to age-appropriate visual acuity measurement (using HOTV or tumbling E tests) and ophthalmoscopy.5

• The USPSTF found that early detection and treatment of amblyopia and amblyogenic risk factors can improve visual acuity. These treatments include surgery for strabismus and cataracts; use of glasses, contact lenses, or refractive surgery treatments to correct refractive error; and visual training, patching, or atropine therapy of the nonamblyopic eye to treat amblyopia.

• These recommendations do not address screening for other anatomic or pathologic entities, such as macrocornea, cataracts, retinal abnormalities, or neonatal neuroblastoma, nor do they address newer screening technologies currently under investigation.

Discussion

Visual impairment caused by refractive error, amblyopia, strabismus, and astigmatism is a common condition among young children, affecting 5 to 10 percent of all preschoolers. Amblyopia is present in 1 to 4 percent of pre-school-aged children; an estimated 5 to 7 percent of pre-school-aged children have refractive errors.4 Uncorrected amblyopia may harm school performance, ability to learn, and later, adult self-image.6 Furthermore, uncorrected amblyopia may be a risk factor for future total blindness. Because visual impairment in children is common and believed to have an early sensitive period when interventions lead to better outcomes, much interest has focused on primary care vision-screening tools for early detection, referral, and treatment.

The USPSTF found no direct evidence that screening for visual impairment, compared with no screening, leads to improved visual acuity. However, the USPSTF found one fair-quality study showing that intense screening by eye professionals (compared with usual screening) decreases the prevalence of amblyopia.7 This recent randomized controlled trial in the United Kingdom, the Avon Longitudinal Study of Pregnancy and Childhood (ALSPAC) trial,7 has reported that intensive screening performed six times between ages eight and 37 months by an eye professional (using the cover test, Cardiff Cards, Kay Picture test, and HOTV letters) led to decreased prevalence of amblyopia and improved visual acuity compared with a one-time visual screening at age 37 months (using Kays Picture test and HOTV letters). Any child failing a screening test was referred to the hospital eye service for further testing and treatment. Compared with the group screened once at age 37 months, the intensively screened group had a significantly lower prevalence of severe amblyopia at age 7.5 years (amblyopia B prevalence, 0.6 percent versus 1.8 percent) and a lower prevalence of residual amblyopia after treatment (7.5 percent versus 25 percent).

The USPSTF reviewed the evidence for the accuracy of vision screening tests in children younger than five years. The USPSTF found no evidence evaluating the role of screening for family history or parental concern, or evaluating the accuracy of the clinical examination to detect visual impairments such as cataracts or strabismus. One fair-quality study of children aged three to five years who were screened by public health nurses with annual tests, including Cambridge Crowding Cards, the Hirschberg test, and the Titmus Fly Stereotest, reported an overall sensitivity of 60 to 71 percent and a specificity of 70 to 80 percent.8 A good-quality systematic review, which evaluated the accuracy of the Snellen E test or Stycar graded balls and the Titmus Fly Stereotest in children aged three to five years, reported an estimated sensitivity of 9 to 12.5 percent and a specificity of 99 percent.9 Three poor-quality studies examined the accuracy of the Medical Technology Incorporated photoscreener in a population of children younger than three years with a high prevalence of visual impairment. Sensitivity ranged from 37 to 88 percent, and specificity ranged from 40 to 88 percent.1012 For the Visiscreen in children younger than three years, overall sensitivity and specificity were 85 and 94 percent, respectively.13

The USPSTF found fair-quality evidence that early treatment of amblyogenic risk factors, including strabismus, refractive error, and cataracts, prevents amblyopia.1417 Indirect evidence for the effectiveness of amblyopia treatment comes from cross-sectional studies that show lower prevalence of visual impairment in screened populations compared with unscreened populations.18,19 Cohort studies show that among children who have been diagnosed with visual impairment, amblyopia is unlikely to improve without therapy.20 Prospective and retrospective studies report that between approximately 40 and 95 percent of persons with amblyopia have improved visual acuity after treatment.2133 Two fair-quality studies of treatment for amblyopia have found that successful outcomes depend on earlier treatment.24,31 In these studies, treatment efficacy steadily decreased after age three years; by age 12 years, treatment was ineffective. However, there is fair evidence to suggest that a modest delay in treatment does not harm outcomes.34 Because the USPSTF found no studies that followed patients into adulthood, the long-term effectiveness of the interventions for amblyopia is unclear.

The USPSTF found no studies detailing permanent harms resulting from screening or data regarding the harms of false-positive screening. However, potential harms of screening may include labeling and the costs associated with the further evaluation of children with false-positive screening results. Potential harms of interventions include disruption of normal eye development and temporary loss of visual acuity of the nonamblyopic eye, which resolves weeks after completion of therapy.35

There is limited research regarding the performance of vision screening tests in the primary care setting, although there are studies36,37 underway comparing various screening methods (K. Sunnah, project manager, Project Universal Preschool Vision Screening, personal communication, June 2003). Current studies reviewed by the USPSTF, including the ALSPAC study,7 support the effectiveness of intensive screening; however, it is not clear whether the magnitude of benefit observed in the United Kingdom study is generalizable to the U.S. population, to children younger than three years, or to services provided by primary care physicians. It would be helpful if similar studies comparing early, intensive screening to usual visual screening were performed in children younger than five years using screening tests commonly performed in the United States by primary care physicians.

Recommendations of Others

The recommendation of the American Academy of Family Physicians can be accessed at http://www.aafp.org/x7661.xml. The joint recommendation of the AAP, American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus, and the American Academy of Ophthalmology can be accessed at http://aap.org/policy/s0208.html.

The clinical practice guideline of the American Optometric Association can be accessed at http://www.aoa.org/clincare/pdf/CPG-2.pdf. The recommendation of the Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination can be accessed at http://www.ctfphc.org.

Address correspondence to Ned Calonge, M.D., M.P.H., Chair, U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, c/o Program Director, USPSTF, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 540 Gaither Rd., Rockville, MD 20850 (e-mail: uspstf@ahrq.gov).

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendations are independent of the U.S. government. They do not represent the views of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, or the U.S. Public Health Service.

REFERENCES

1. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Guide to clinical preventive services. 2d ed. Washington, D.C.: Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, 1996.

2. Harris RP, Helfand M, Woolf SH, Lohr KN, Mulrow CD, Teutsch SM, et al. Current methods of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force: a review of the process. Am J Prev Med. 2001;20(3 suppl):21–35.

3. Kemper A, Harris R, Lieu TA, Homer CJ, Whitener BL. Screening for visual impairment in children younger than age 5 years. Systematic evidence review no. 27. Prepared by the Research Triangle Institute—University of North Carolina Evidence-based Practice Center under contract no. 290-97-0011. Rockville, Md.: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2004. Accessed online October 19, 2004, at: http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/prev/vischinv.htm.

4. Nelson HD, Nygren P, Huffman L, Wheeler D, Hamilton A, Teutsch S, et al. Screening for visual impairment in children younger than age 5 years: update of the evidence from randomized controlled trials, 1999–2003. Rockville, Md.: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2004. Accessed online October 19, 2004, at: http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/3rduspstf/visionscr/vischup.htm.

5. Committee on Practice and Ambulatory Medicine, Section on Ophthalmology. American Association of Certified Orthoptists; American Association of Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus; American Academy of Ophthalmology. Eye examination in infants, children, and young adults by pediatricians. Pediatrics. 2003;111(4 pt 1):902–7.

6. Packwood EA, Cruz OA, Rychwalski PJ, Keech RV. The psychosocial effects of amblyopia study. J AAPOS. 1999;3:15–7.

7. Williams C, Harrad RA, Harvey I, Sparrow JM. Screening for amblyopia in preschool children: results of a population-based, randomised controlled trial. ALSPAC Study Team. Avon Longitudinal Study of Pregnancy and Childhood. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2001;8:279–95.

8. Robinson B, Bobier WR, Martin E, Bryant L. Measurement of the validity of a preschool vision screening program. Am J Public Health. 1999;89:193–8.

9. Kennedy R, Sheps SB, Bagaric D. Field trial of the Otago photoscreener. Can J Ophthalmology. 1995;30:193–7.

10. Tong PY, Enke-Miyazaki E, Bassin RE, Tielsch JM, Stager DR Sr, Beauchamp GR, et al. Screening for amblyopia in preverbal children with photoscreening photographs. National Children’s Eye Care Foundation Vision Screening Study Group. Ophthalmology. 1998;105:856–63.

11. Tong PY, Bassin RE, Enke-Miyazaki E, Macke JP, Tielsch JM, Stager DR Sr, et al. Screening for amblyopia in preverbal children with photo-screening photographs: II. Sensitivity and specificity of the MTI photo-screener. Ophthalmology. 2000;107:1623–9.

12. Cooper CD, Gole GA, Hall JE, Colville DJ, Carden SM, Bowling FG. Evaluating photoscreeners II: MTI and fortune videorefractor. Aust N Z J Ophthalmol. 1999;27:387–98.

13. Cogen MS, Ottemiller DE. Photorefractor for detection of treatable eye disorders in preverbal children. Ala Med. 1992;62:16–20.

14. Birch EE, Fawcett S, Stager DR. Why does early surgical alignment improve stereoacuity outcomes in infantile esotropia?. J AAPOS. 2000;4:10–4.

15. Ingram RM, Arnold PE, Dally S, Lucas J. Results of a randomised trial of treating abnormal hypermetropia from the age of 6 months. Br J Ophthalmol. 1990;74:158–9.

16. Atkinson J, Braddick O, Robier B, Anker S, Ehrlich D, King J, et al. Two infant vision screening programmes: prediction and prevention of strabismus and amblyopia from photo- and videorefractive screening. Eye. 1996;10(pt 2)189–98.

17. Cheng KP, Hiles DA, Biglan AW, Pettapiece MC. Visual results after early surgical treatment of unilateral congenital cataracts. Ophthalmology. 1991;98:903–10.

18. Jakobsson P, Kvarnstrom G, Lennerstrand G. Amblyopia in Sweden: effects of screening at health care centers and in school. In: Spiritus M. Transactions, 23rd meeting of the European Strabismological Association. New York: Aeolus Press; 1997:25–30.

19. Eibschitz-Tsimhoni M, Friedman T, Naor J, Eibschitz N, Friedman Z. Early screening for amblyogenic risk factors lowers the prevalence and severity of amblyopia. J AAPOS. 2000;4:194–9.

20. Preslan MW, Novak A. Baltimore Vision Screening Project. Phase 2. Ophthalmology. 1998;105:150–3.

21. Eustis HS, Chamberlain D. Treatment for amblyopia: results using occlusive contact lens. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus. 1996;33:319–22.

22. Krumholtz I, FitzGerald D. Efficacy of treatment modalities in refractive amblyopia. J Am Optom Assoc. 1999;70:399–404.

23. Bowman RJ, Williamson TH, Andrews RG, Aitchison TC, Dutton GN. An inner city preschool visual screening programme: long-term visual results. Br J Ophthalmol. 1998;82:543–8.

24. Latvala ML, Paloheimo M, Karma A. Screening of amblyopic children and long-term follow-up. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 1996;74:488–92.

25. Beardsell R, Clarke S, Hill M. Outcome of occlusion treatment for amblyopia. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus. 1999;36:19–24.

26. Hiscox F, Strong N, Thompson JR, Minshull C, Woodruff G. Occlusion for amblyopia: a comprehensive survey of outcome. Eye. 1992;6pt 3:300–4.

27. Woodruff G, Hiscox F, Thompson JR, Smith LK. Factors affecting the outcome of children treated for amblyopia. Eye. 1994;8pt 6:627–31.

28. Newman DK, Hitchcock A, McCarthy H, Keast-Butler J, Moore AT. Preschool vision screening: outcome of children referred to the hospital eye service. Br J Ophthalmol. 1996;80:1077–82.

29. Repka MX, Ray JM. The efficacy of optical and pharmacological penalization. Ophthalmology. 1993;100:769–74.

30. Rutstein RP, Fuhr PS. Efficacy and stability of amblyopia therapy. Optom Vis Sci. 1992;69:747–54.

31. Epelbaum M, Milleret C, Buisseret P, Dufier JL. The sensitive period for strabismic amblyopia in humans. Ophthalmology. 1993;100:323–7.

32. Simons K, Stein L, Sener EC, Vitale S, Guyton DL. Full-time atropine, intermittent atropine, and optical penalization and binocular outcome in treatment of strabismic amblyopia. Ophthalmology. 1997;104:2143–55.

33. Bradford GM, Kutschke PJ, Scott WE. Results of amblyopia therapy in eyes with unilateral structural abnormalities. Ophthalmology. 1992;99:1616–21.

34. Clarke MP, Wright CM, Hrisos S, Anderson JD, Henderson J, Richardson SR. Randomised controlled trial of treatment of unilateral visual impairment detected at preschool vision screening. BMJ. 2003;327:1251

35. Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group. A randomized trial of atropine vs. patching for treatment of moderate amblyopia in children. Arch Ophthalmol. 2002;120:268–78.

36. Ciner EB, Schmidt PP, Orel-Bixler D, Dobson V, Maguire M, Cyert L, et al. Vision screening of preschool children: evaluating the past, looking toward the future. Optom Vis Sci. 1998;75:571–84.

37. National Eye Institute. Vision In Preschoolers Study (VIP Study). Accessed online October 19, 2004, at: http://www.nei.nih.gov/neitrials/static/study85.asp

This is one in a series excerpted from the Recommendation Statements released by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). These statements address preventive health services for use in primary care clinical settings, including screening tests, counseling, and chemoprevention. This statement is part of AFP’s CME. See “Clinical Quiz” on page 233.



Want to use this article elsewhere? Get Permissions


Article Tools

  • Print page
  • Share this page
  • AFP CME Quiz

Information From Industry

More in AFP

More in Pubmed

Navigate this Article