↓ Skip to main content

Vision Screening in Children Aged 6 Months to 5 Years: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement

Overview of attention for article published in JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
13 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
policy
3 policy sources
twitter
75 X users
facebook
14 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
2 Google+ users
guideline
1 clinical guideline source
podcasts
1 podcast

Readers on

mendeley
195 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Vision Screening in Children Aged 6 Months to 5 Years: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement
Published in
JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association, September 2017
DOI 10.1001/jama.2017.11260
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

One of the most important causes of vision abnormalities in children is amblyopia (also known as "lazy eye"). Amblyopia is an alteration in the visual neural pathway in a child's developing brain that can lead to permanent vision loss in the affected eye. Among children younger than 6 years, 1% to 6% have amblyopia or its risk factors (strabismus, anisometropia, or both). Early identification of vision abnormalities could prevent the development of amblyopia. Studies show that screening rates among children vary by race/ethnicity and family income. Data based on parent reports from 2009-2010 indicated identical screening rates among black non-Hispanic children and white non-Hispanic children (80.7%); however, Hispanic children were less likely than non-Hispanic children to report vision screening (69.8%). Children whose families earned 200% or more above the federal poverty level were more likely to report vision screening than families with lower incomes. To update the 2011 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation on screening for amblyopia and its risk factors in children. The USPSTF reviewed the evidence on the accuracy of vision screening tests and the benefits and harms of vision screening and treatment. Surgical interventions were considered to be out of scope for this review. Treatment of amblyopia is associated with moderate improvements in visual acuity in children aged 3 to 5 years, which are likely to result in permanent improvements in vision throughout life. The USPSTF concluded that the benefits are moderate because untreated amblyopia results in permanent, uncorrectable vision loss, and the benefits of screening and treatment potentially can be experienced over a child's lifetime. The USPSTF found adequate evidence to bound the potential harms of treatment (ie, higher false-positive rates in low-prevalence populations) as small. Therefore, the USPSTF concluded with moderate certainty that the overall net benefit is moderate for children aged 3 to 5 years. The USPSTF recommends vision screening at least once in all children aged 3 to 5 years to detect amblyopia or its risk factors. (B recommendation) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of vision screening in children younger than 3 years. (I statement).

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 75 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 195 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 195 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 12%
Other 15 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 8%
Student > Bachelor 14 7%
Researcher 13 7%
Other 38 19%
Unknown 76 39%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 53 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 10%
Psychology 5 3%
Social Sciences 5 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 2%
Other 20 10%
Unknown 88 45%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 175. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 May 2026.
All research outputs
#290,872
of 34,518,599 outputs
Outputs from JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association
#3,632
of 42,538 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,725
of 355,041 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association
#73
of 394 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,518,599 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 42,538 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 73.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 355,041 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 394 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.