Table 3. Quality Rating Scores: Screening for Visual Impairment in Children Younger than Age 5 Years

Table 3. Quality Rating Scores

Author, Year	Comparable Groups Assembled (Adequate Randomization, Allocation Concealment, or Distribution of Confounders)?	Maintenance of Comparable Groups (Attrition, Crossovers, Adherence, Contamination)?	Important Loss to followup (Differential, Overall)?	Measures Equal, Reliable, Valid, Including Masking of Outcomes?	Clear Definition of Interventions?	Important Outcomes Considered?	Intention-to-Treat Analysis (or Adjustment for Potential Confounders)?	Quality Rating
Williams et al, 2002²	Yes/no Pseudo-random (last digit in day of mother's date of birth) Orthoptists had no knowledge of what group the children were in, rules of allocation, or child's screening history	Not known Completers more likely to have educated mothers, not teenaged mothers, live in owner occupied residence, breast fed for at least 3 mos, family history of strabismus or sight problems, weighed > 2,500 grams (P < 0.001); not known how comparable between groups	Yes 1,088/2,029: 54% of intensive screening group completed study, 826/1,490: 55% of control group completed study	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Fair
Williams et al, 2001³	Yes/no Pseudo-random (last digit in day of mother's date of birth) Orthoptists had no knowledge of what group the children were in, rules of allocation, or child's screening history	Intensive group slightly less affluent than controls; attendees more affluent than non-attendees in each group	Yes 54% of intensive group and 64% of control group attended the final assessment at 37 mos; 31% of intensive group and 35% of control group never attended an assessment	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Fair
Pediatric Eye Disease Group, 2002⁴	Yes Permuted-block design	Yes	No 97% followup patch; 98% atropine	Yes Primary visual acuity outcome measure was masked in 97% of cases	Yes	Yes	Yes	Good

Author, Year

Comparable Groups Assembled (Adequate Randomization, Allocation Concealment, or Distribution of Confounders)?

Maintenance of Comparable Groups (Attrition, Crossovers, Adherence, Contamination)?

Important Loss to followup (Differential, Overall)?

Measures Equal, Reliable, Valid, Including Masking of Outcomes?

Clear Definition of Interventions?

Important Outcomes Considered?

Intention-to-Treat Analysis (or Adjustment for Potential Confounders)?

Quality Rating

Williams et al, 2002²

Yes/no
Pseudo-random (last digit in day of mother's date of birth)

Orthoptists had no knowledge of what group the children were in, rules of allocation, or child's screening history

Not known
Completers more likely to have educated mothers, not teenaged mothers, live in owner occupied residence, breast fed for at least 3 mos, family history of strabismus or sight problems, weighed > 2,500 grams (P < 0.001); not known how comparable between groups

Yes
1,088/2,029: 54% of intensive screening group completed study, 826/1,490: 55% of control group completed study

Yes

Fair

Williams et al, 2001³

Yes/no
Pseudo-random (last digit in day of mother's date of birth)

Orthoptists had no knowledge of what group the children were in, rules of allocation, or child's screening history

Intensive group slightly less affluent than controls; attendees more affluent than non-attendees in each group

Yes
54% of intensive group and 64% of control group attended the final assessment at 37 mos; 31% of intensive group and 35% of control group never attended an assessment

Yes

Fair

Pediatric Eye Disease Group, 2002⁴

Yes
Permuted-block design

Yes

No
97% followup patch; 98% atropine

Yes
Primary visual acuity outcome measure was masked in 97% of cases

Yes

Good

Return to Document