Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “MASS SCREENING”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 613 records · Page 34Linked to original sources
PubMed1986

Mass screening of children for strabismus or ametropia with two-flash photoskiascopy.

UNLABELLED: 169 non-selected 1-5 year-old children (338 eyes) were screened by two-flash photoskiascopy with an autofocus camera for strabismus, high anisometropia and high ametropias without cycloplegia. The photography was performed by nurses or technicians and the photographs were analyzed by an optician. The sensitivity of the method for the refractive errors was tested with an optical demonstration eye. FINDINGS: 5 esotropias, 1 exotropia, 1 straight-eyed hypermetropic anisometropia of 4 diopters; 1 false positive high hyperopia (of +2.5 diopters) of both eyes. The examination of the photographs showed slight refractive errors in 33 cases (66 eyes; 19.5%): two of them of symmetrical myopia of -1.0 and -1.75 diopters and 31 of symmetrical hyperopia of +0.25 to +4.25 diopters in retinoscopy. 128 cases (256 eyes; 76%) were normal on the photographs. Of these, 37 non-selected cases (74 eyes) were checked clinically and were symmetrical cases of -1.0 to +3.25 diopters on retinoscopy. No false negative cases appeared among these control cases. 2,4% of the photographs failed technically or because of noncooperation of the children. Two-flash photoskiascopy, performed by technicians or nurses provides a valuable tool for mass screening of infants for strabismus and/or ametropia causing amblyopia.

Child, Preschool↗
PubMed1977

[Role of mass screening in detection of ovarian tumors].

The author presents an analysis of mass prophylactic examinations among female population both according to the literature data and based on the personal observations. Gynecological examinations are shown to be inadequate for active recognition of early forms of malignant ovarian tumors. Low percentage (from 0.0018 to 0.07%) of recognition of boundary and malignant ovarian tumors during mass prophylactic examinations enabled the author to advocate changing of the aim of prophylactic examinations proper and to single out the contingent with a high-risk of ovarian tumors. It is of great practical value, since it makes possible to select only those potential patients among the females, who are likely to be affected by ovarian tumors in future.

Adult↗