SynthesisInternational journal of surgery (London, England)2025
Systematic review and meta-analysis of artificial intelligence models for strabismus screening: methodological insights and future directions.
Synthesis in International journal of surgery (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Binocular Vision Anomalies: An Update on Prevalence, Impact, Technological and Treatment Developments and Current Challenges.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026Review
- AI-Assisted Strabismus Diagnosis Using Eye-Tracking and Machine Learning.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAn increasing number of studies apply artificial intelligence (AI) techniques to strabismus detection to support clinical diagnosis. However, there is no quantitative synthesis of performance of these methods. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluate the diagnostic performance of AI models for strabismus screening.
methodsWe searched Ovid, Web of Science, PubMed, and Cochrane CENTRAL from inception to May 2025 for studies assessing AI-based strabismus screening. Eligible studies were analyzed using random-effects bivariate models. Subgroup analyses explored the influence of algorithmic architecture (End-to-End vs. Step-by-Step), validation type (internal vs. external), data augmentation, training sample size, and data modality (images, videos, eye-tracking data).
resultsThe 24 studies involving at least 8484 patients and 40 394 ocular measurements were included. AI models exhibited strong diagnostic performance, with a pooled sensitivity of 0.94 (95% CI: 0.91-0.97) and specificity of 0.94 (95% CI: 0.91-0.96). End-to-End models (14 studies) had comparable summary sensitivity [0.95 (0.91-0.97) vs. 0.94 (0.85-0.97); P = 0.694] and specificity [0.94 (0.91-0.97 vs. 0.93 (0.85-0.97); P = 0.627] than Step-by-Step models (10 studies). Subgroup analyses indicated that, for End-to-End models, image-based studies outperformed video-based studies, with higher sensitivity (0.96 vs. 0.85, P = 0.04) and specificity (0.95 vs. 0.91, P = 0.10). Larger training datasets and data augmentation enhanced performance, though differences were not statistically significant. Most studies demonstrated low risk of bias and applicability concerns across QUADAS-2 domains, except for the index test domain.
conclusionAI models exhibit robust performance in strabismus screening, with End-to-End models demonstrating greater consistency. Future research should focus on integrating multimodal data and including diverse populations to enhance the precision and clinical utility of AI-driven strabismus diagnosis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.