2019
DOI: 10.21203/rs.2.16388/v1
|View full text |Cite
Preprint
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Compliance with spectacle use in children with refractive errors- a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract: Background Primary objective of this review was to measure compliance with spectacle use in children with refractive errors. Secondary objective was to understand the reasons for non-compliance.Methods The databases searched were Ovid, EMBASE, CINAHL and Pubmed. All studies up to March, 2018 were included. The search terms were- ((((((Compliance [Title/Abstract]) OR Adherence[Title/Abstract]) OR Compliant[Title/Abstract]) OR Adherent[Title/Abstract])) AND (((Spectacle[Title/Abstract]) OR Spectacles[Title/Abstr… Show more

Help me understand this report
View published versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 22 publications
(51 reference statements)
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The studies were assessed for the methodological quality based on the tool developed by Wong et al also used in a few other studies. 7 8 The checklist quality assessment tool for systematic reviews of observational studies (QATSO) ( Supplementary Table S1 ) was used to assess the quality of searched articles by two independent investigators (PC and SS). The tool consists of 6 items that assess components in observation studies and whenever the information provided was not enough to assist in making judgement for a certain item, we agreed to grade that item with a “0” meaning high risk of bias.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The studies were assessed for the methodological quality based on the tool developed by Wong et al also used in a few other studies. 7 8 The checklist quality assessment tool for systematic reviews of observational studies (QATSO) ( Supplementary Table S1 ) was used to assess the quality of searched articles by two independent investigators (PC and SS). The tool consists of 6 items that assess components in observation studies and whenever the information provided was not enough to assist in making judgement for a certain item, we agreed to grade that item with a “0” meaning high risk of bias.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%