Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2022 Jul 21;17(7):e0271433. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0271433

Prevalence of visual impairment and associated factors among children in Ethiopia: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Denekew Tenaw Anley 1,*, Rahel Mulatie Anteneh 1, Yibeltal Shitu Tegegne 2, Oshe lemita Ferede 3, Melkamu Aderajew Zemene 1, Dessie Abebaw Angaw 3, Abraham Teym 4
Editor: Ving Fai Chan5
PMCID: PMC9302764  PMID: 35862381

Abstract

Introduction

Visual impairment is a major public health problem in developing countries where there is no enough health-care service. It has a significant impact on the affected child’s psychological, educational and socioeconomic experiences, during childhood and beyond. Therefore, the aim of this review was to estimate the pooled prevalence of visual impairment and its associated factors among children in Ethiopia.

Method

This systematic review and meta-analysis was designed based on the PRISMA guidelines. Relevant published articles in Ethiopia from 2011–2021 were searched in PubMed/Medline, HINARI, Google scholar, and conference paper and thesis or research final reports were accessed from Ethiopian Universities’ repositories. Data was extracted in Microsoft excel by using JBI data extraction checklist. The pooled prevalence and odds ratio of associated factors with their 95% CI was computed by using STATA 14/SE software. A fixed effect meta-analysis model was employed for a Cochrane Q test statistic and I2 test showed there was no heterogeneity in the included studies.

Result

A total of 7,647 children from nine studies were included in this study. The overall prevalence of visual impairment among children in Ethiopia was 7% (95% CI: 6, 7%). The pooled prevalence of visual impairment by region was almost similar in Ethiopia. However, there was no significant association between the identified factors and visual impairment among children. But the result showed that being males (AOR 0.642, 95% CI: 0.357–1.156), Children in the age of 10–13 years (AOR 0.224, 95% CI: 0.046–1.102) and 14–18 years (AOR 0.508, 95% CI: 0.102–2.534) were found to be less likely to have visual impairment. On the other hand, children of parents with visual impairment (AOR 1.820, 95% CI: 0.381–8.698) more likely to have visual impairment.

Conclusion

Visual impairment among children in Ethiopia is still a public health problem one year later to VISION 2020, a global initiative aimed to eliminate avoidable blindness. All most one out of fourteen children in Ethiopia had visual impairment. Therefore, the government of Ethiopia should focus on effective, efficient, comprehensive eye health care services by integrating with the national health system to prevent avoidable visual impairment among children.

Introduction

One of our most essential sensory systems and a mechanism of integration between the individual and the external environment is the visual system [1]. Visual impairment is significant loss of vison or functional limitation of the eye or the visual system. It can manifest as reduced visual acuity or contrast sensitivity, visual field loss, photophobia, diplopia, visual distortion, visual perceptual difficulties, or any combination of the above. Vision impairment ranges in severity from mild visual loss to total absence of light perception or blindness [24].

According to a recent international assessment on vision, at least 2.2 billion individuals worldwide have a vision impairment or blindness, with at least 1 billion of them having a visual impairment that could have been prevented or recognized but not handled [4].

Visual impairment and blindness are major public health problems in developing countries where there is no enough health-care service [5, 6]. Visual impairment among children with age 10 to 15 years old is more common in developing countries compared with developed one. According to the World Health Organization (WHO) 2010 reports, approximately 19 million children below 15 years of age are estimated to be visually impaired, while 1.4 million are blind based on WHO criteria. However, 80% of blindness is preventable [2, 7]. The prevalence of blindness in children ranges from approximately 0.3/1000 children in developed countries to 1.5/1000 in developing countries [8].

The prevalence of low vision in Ethiopia is 3.7% with considerable regional variation. The large proportion of this problem (91.2%) is due to avoidable (either preventable or treatable) causes. If it is early diagnosed and treated, the problem can be corrected easily. It could cause irreversible blindness otherwise [5]. According to findings to local areas, prevalence varies across regions, with the highest prevalence in Mikelle and the lowest prevalence in Gurage (12.4 percent and 5.20 percent, respectively) due to factors such as duration of mobile exposure, sex, and television distance varying from local to local [9, 10].

Globally, the most frequent causes of childhood visual impairment (both mild and sever) and blindness are retinal disorders, glaucoma, corneal scarring (primarily due to Vitamin A deficiency), cataract and cerebral cause. The other major causes of visual impairment are uncorrected refractive errors (43%) followed by cataract (33%); the first cause of blindness is cataract (51%) [6, 7]. Majority of the findings reported uncorrected refractive error as the major cause of visual impairment [11].

Visual impairment has a significant impact on the affected child’s psychological, educational and socioeconomic experiences, during childhood and beyond [12, 13]. The control of childhood blindness is considered a high priority of the WHO’s ‘VISION 2020 with The “Right to Sight’ and “child eye health” as a public health agenda and used as a programme [14]. The main target of this global initiative was to eliminate avoidable blindness by the year 2020. Although Blindness in children is relatively uncommon, it was a priority of VISION 2020 for several reasons. The first one is children who are born blind or who become blind and survive have a lifetime of blindness, and ahead of them with all the associated emotional, social and economic costs to the child, family and society. The second one is that control of blindness is closely linked to child survival, as many of the conditions associated with childhood blindness also cause child mortality due to premature birth, measles, vitamin A deficiency [15, 16].

The evidence generated by this systematic review and meta-analysis could urge policy makers and program managers to design appropriate prevention, and detection strategies to reduce the risk of blindness and other negative consequences of visual impairment among children in Ethiopia. As to the best of our knowledge, there is no recent study on pooled estimate of the prevalence and associated factors of visual impairment among children in Ethiopia. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to estimate the pooled prevalence of visual impairment and its associated factors among children in Ethiopia.

Materials and methods

Design and searching strategy

This systematic review and meta-analysis were done to compile the most recent evidences using articles published and grey literatures on the prevalence and associated factors of visual impairment among children in Ethiopia. The protocol was registered on PROSPERO international database with registration number of CRD42021233034. For reporting we followed the protocol of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guideline [17].

Relevant published articles were searched in PubMed/Medline, HINARI, and Google scholar. In addition, other grey literatures were accessed from Ethiopian Universities’ repositories. The search terms were developed in accordance with the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) thesaurus using a combination of key terms (Visual impairment, children and Ethiopia) and then, the searching combination was adapted for use in other databases.

Manual searching of articles published in Ethiopian Journal of Health Sciences, Ethiopian Medical Journal, Ethiopian Journal of Health and Development, and Ethiopian Journal of Health and Biomedical Sciences was done. Reference lists of retrieved articles were traced to find out articles which were not retrieved from electronic databases using the developed searching combinations. Two author groups: group one (DT, RM) and group two (YS, OL), independently searched the articles. The searching of articles was done on January 24-25/2021 using the following searching combinations;

"Vision Disorders"[Title/Abstract] OR "Vision Disability “OR "Visual Disorders" OR" Visual Impairment"[Title/Abstract]) AND child [Title/Abstract] OR children [Title/Abstract] OR childhood [Title/Abstract] OR "school age children"[Title/Abstract])) AND (Ethiopia [Title/Abstract]).

The above searching strategy was inclusive of both institutional and community based studies as there was no a term used for exclusion.

Inclusion and exclusion

Both descriptive and analytical cross-sectional studies were considered. Studies with prevalence and/or associated factors of visual impairment among children (0–18 years old) in Ethiopia, both community and institute-based studies with the outcome of interest and published in English language from 2011–2021 were included. All citations without abstract and/or full-text and qualitative studies were excluded.

Study selection and quality appraisal

All articles retrieved through search strategy were imported to EndNote X7. Then, duplications were checked and removed. After exclusion of duplicate studies, titles and abstracts were independently screened for inclusion in full text appraisal which were done by two groups of review authors: group one (DTA, RMA) and group two (YST, OL). Differences between two groups were resolved through discussion and /or the decision was determined by the third group of review authors (MAZ, DAA).

The full text of articles which we found relevant, were appraised for inclusion in systematic review and meta-analysis. The quality of studies was assessed using JBI critical appraisal checklist for prevalence studies and analytical cross-sectional studies having 9 and 8 checklist items, respectively [18, 19]. Articles with an overall quality assessment score of greater than half (50%) were included. The discrepancies during this full text quality assessment were solved like the way differences in title/abstract screening phase were resolved. The studies selection process was reported graphically using a PRISMA flow diagram [17].

Outcome measurement

The main outcome of this systematic review and meta-analysis was childhood visual impairment in Ethiopia. The measure of effect was odds ratio. Low vision was defined as visual acuity of less than 6/18 but equal to or better than 3/60, or a corresponding visual field loss to less than 20°, in the better eye with the best possible correction. Blindness was defined as visual acuity of less than 3/60, or a corresponding visual field loss to less than 10°, in the better eye with the best possible correction. We defined vision impairment as vision worse than 6/12 in the better eye as it includes low vision (visual acuity worse than 6/18) and blindness (visual acuity worse than 3/60) [20].

Data extraction

The data were extracted using JBI data extraction checklist. Two groups of review authors extracted the data independently. The differences between the two authors were solved with discussion. When there was no agreement, the decision was solved by the third authors review group. Information such as name of first author, year of publication, age group of study participants, study year, study area/region, study design, total number of participants, and number of visually impaired children or participants, proportion of visual impaired case and factors associated with visual impairment and measure of association for each factor in each study in Ethiopia were extracted using Microsoft excel spreadsheet.

Data analysis

The extracted data were exported from Microsoft excel spreadsheet to STATA version 14 (SE) for analysis. Heterogeneity among included studies was quantitatively measured by index of heterogeneity (I2 statistics), in which 25%, 50%, and 75% represented low, moderate, and high heterogeneity, respectively [21]. For the absence of heterogeneity, fixed effect model was used to estimate the pooled prevalence of visual impairment among children in Ethiopia. Because the studies are small, we have chosen fixed effect model, instead of random effect model even though the I statistics is elevated in determining the pooled effect size of associated factors [22]. Subgroup analysis was done by region to see the difference in the pooled prevalence of visual impairment among regions. Small-study effect was evaluated using the visual funnel plot test, and Egger’s test. Odds ratio with its 95% confidence was used to estimate the association between visual impairment and factors. The results were presented both in text and Forest plot.

Results

Searching results

Out of 103 articles retrieved, 30 studies were removed due to duplication through EndNote citation manager. Then, 58 studies were excluded after the title and abstract screening. Full publications of 15 articles were checked in detail for the presence of the outcome variable and 6 studies were removed. The remaining 9 eligible studies were included for this systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the pooled prevalence of visual impairment after quality assessment using JBI quality assessment critical appraisal checklist.

From the total of 6 full text review article removed, 3 articles were excluded due to their outcome of interest was not directly related to our outcome of interest, visual impairment. And one article was excluded because of the study subjects were not similar to our study subjects. The remaining 2 articles were excluded for they were conducted outside Ethiopia. The overall study selection process was represented by the following flow diagram (Fig 1).

Fig 1. Flow chart diagram describing selection of studies for the systematic review and meta-analysis of visual impairment and associated factors among children in Ethiopia, 2021.

Fig 1

Description of included studies

The characteristics of the 9 primary studies included in this review have been described in Table 1. Two Studies were descriptive cross sectional and 7 studies were analytical cross sectional studies carried out in different parts of Ethiopia having sample size in a range of 378 in Addis Ababa Arada sub city [23] to 1289 Gondar town in Amhara region [2]. These studies were conducted from 2011 to 2021.

Table 1. Descriptive summary of 9 studies reporting the prevalence and associated factors of visual impairment among children in Ethiopia included in the systematic review and meta-analysis, 2021.

Author Year of publication Study design Region Study area Sample size Response rate Prevalence (%) Quality status
Alemu et al 2014 ACS Amhara Gondar town 1289 100% 5.43 Low risk
Bezabih et al 2017 ACS Addis Ababa Addis Ababa 804 89.3% 7.24 Low risk
Darge et al 2017 ACS Addis Ababa Arada sub city 378 100% 5.8 Low risk
Dhanesha et al 2018 DCS Tigray Mekelle 1197 95.1% 12.4 Low risk
Hailu et al 2020 ACS Addis Ababa Addis Ababa 816 94.7% 4.4 Low risk
Kedir et al 2014 DCS SNNPR Gurage zone 592 96% 6.5 Low risk
Merrie et al 2019 ACS Amhara Bahir dar 632 95% 8.7 Low risk
Woldeamanuel et al 2020 ACS SNNNPR Gurage zone 1064 100% 5.2 Low risk
Zelalem et al 2019 ACS Amhara Sekela woreda 875 100% 8% Low risk

Note: SNNPR: Southern Nations Nationalities and Peoples Region, Low risk: a study scored > 50% in the JBI quality assessment scale.

In this meta-analysis, a total of 7,647 children were included to estimate the pooled prevalence of visual impairment. The 9 studies were conducted in different regions of the country: most of the studies were conducted in Amhara region and Addis Ababa [1, 2, 2326], Tigray [9], Southern Nations, Nationalities and peoples’ region (SNNPR) [10, 27]. The lowest and highest prevalence of visual impairment among children in Ethiopia was 4.4% [24] and 12.4%) [9] respectively. Independent evaluators re-assessed all the articles before any analysis and the studies were fit in terms of their quality (quality score ranged from 5 and above points). The description of included studies is presented by the following table (Table 1).

Meta-analysis

In the estimation of pooled prevalence of visual impairment, nine studies were used and a total of 7,647 children were participated. The forest plot result of nine included studies showed that the overall pooled prevalence of visual impairment among children in Ethiopia was 7% (95% CI: 6, 7%) (Fig 2). As the I2 statistics shows there was no heterogeneity. Hence, fixed effect model was used to estimate the overall pooled prevalence of visual impairment among children (Fig 2).

Fig 2. Forest plot of the pooled prevalence of visual impairment among children in Ethiopia, 2021.

Fig 2

The pooled prevalence of visual impairment by region

Subgroup analysis was done to see the pooled prevalence of visual impairment by region. According to the result, the highest prevalence was observed in Amhara region (7% (95% CI: 6, 8). The pooled prevalence was similar in Addis Ababa and SNNPR (6% (95% CI: 5, 7) (Fig 3).

Fig 3. Forest plot of pooled visual impairment among children in Ethiopia by region, 2021.

Fig 3

Time trend of visual impairment

According to the line graph drawn, the prevalence of visual impairment had no fixed pattern. Publication in 2017 showed relatively higher prevalence of visual impairment in its study area. The prevalence was smaller in 2018 and decreased in 2020 (Fig 4).

Fig 4. Trend of visual impairment among children in Ethiopia, 2021.

Fig 4

Determinants of visual impairment

Determinants of visual impairment were identified based on the pooled effect of two or more studies. The absence of significant heterogeneity was indicated by the insignificant p-values of I2 in the estimate of pooled effect size of associated factors. However, there was no significant association between the identified factors and visual impairment among children. However, the result showed that males were less likely to have visual impairment compared to females with AOR 0.642(95% CI: (0.357–1.156). Children in the age of 10–13 years and 14–18 years were found to be less likely to have visual impairment compared to those in the age of 6–9 years with AOR of 0.224 (95% CI; 0.046–1.102) and 0.508 (95% CI; 0.102–2.534) respectively. Children of families with visual impairment were 1.82 times more likely to have visual impairment compared to children of families with no visual impairment with AOR of 1.820 (95% CI; 0.381–8.698). Children from illiterate families were less likely to have visual impairment compared to those children of families who were college and above with AOR 0.668 (95% CI; 0.023–19.597) (Table 2).

Table 2. The pooled effect size of factors of visual impairment among children in Ethiopia, 2021.

No. Variable (Reference) Number of studies Effect size (95% CI) Number of studies Heterogeneity
Q-value P-value I2
1 Sex (female) 6 0.642 (0.357–1.156) 6 0.81 0.976 61.0%
2 Age 10–13 (6–9) 2 0.224 (0.046–1.102) 2 0.25 0.616 80.1%
3 Age 14–18 (6–9) 2 0.508 (0.102–2.534) 2 0.05 0.828 80.1%
4 Illiterate parents (College and above) 3 0.668 (0.023–19.597) 3 0.06 0.970 72.9%
5 Parents with visual impairment (no visual impairment) 2 1.820 (0.381–8.698) 2 0.00 0.957 80.1%

Small study effect

The presence of possible small study effect was checked by using funnel plot and egger test. The funnel plot showed symmetric distribution and the P-value for the egger’s test was 0.117, both results indicated the absence of publication bias (Fig 5).

Fig 5. Funnel plot and egger test of the 9 studies include in meta-analysis of visual impairment among children in Ethiopia, 2021.

Fig 5

Discussion

In this study, the pooled prevalence of visual impairment among children in Ethiopia was 7%. This finding is higher than the study conducted in china (0.66%) [28], a study conducted in Australia (6.4%) [29], a study conducted in Brazil (4.82%) [30], but lower than the other study conducted in china (22.3%). This prevalence of visual impairment, higher than most of the studies, is because of high prevalence of trachoma among children in Ethiopia (26.9%) [31]. The other study also showed that prevalence of trachoma among children 1–9 years of age was 40.1% [32]. Studies showed that, trachoma was found to be the most common cause of visual impairment in Ethiopia [33]. The other reason can be the fact that Child eye health has not been given priority in health development plans of most African countries including Ethiopia [34]. The absence of national vision screening programs and surveillance data on visual impairment shows the existing fact of the absence of priority given to child health eye in Ethiopia. There is also hygiene problem particularly in rural areas of Ethiopia [3537].

The result of sub group analysis by region showed that, the pooled prevalence of visual impairment was almost similar across regions in Ethiopia. However, there was relatively higher prevalence of visual impairment in Amhara region (7% 95%; CI; 6, 8) compared to Addis Ababa and SNNRP.

Regarding to determinants of visual impairment, none of the factors were found to be significantly associated. However, the effect size showed that males had lower odds of visual impairment compared to females (0.642 (0.357–1.156). This finding is also similar with other studies identified the higher odds of visual impairment like myopia among female children [38]. Children of parents with visual impairment were found to have higher odds of visual impairment (Pooled OR;1.820 (95% CI; 0.381–8.698)). The odds of visual impairment were found to be lower among children in the age of 10–13 and 14–18 years when compared to those in the age of 6–9 years. This may be due to the fact that children would take care of their eyes as they get matured.

Strengths and limitations of the study

This study was the first systematic review and meta-analysis which showed the pooled prevalence of visual impairment among children based on the studies conducted in the last 10 years. However, the absence of studies from regions other than the included ones may limit the national representativeness of the study.

Conclusion

Visual impairment among children in Ethiopia is still a public health problem one year later to VISION 2020, a global initiative aimed to eliminate avoidable blindness by the year 2020 and preventing the projected doubling of avoidable visual impairment between 1990 and 2020. All most one out of fourteen children in Ethiopia had visual impairment. In this review, there was no significant association between the identified factors and visual impairment among children. However, being male, children in the age of 10–13 years and 14–18 years were less likely to be visual impaired. Whereas, children of parents with visual impairment were more likely to have visual impairment. Therefore, the government of Ethiopia should focus on effective, efficient, comprehensive eye health care services by integrating with the national health system to prevent avoidable visual impairment among children.

Supporting information

S1 File. PRISMA 2020 checklist filled.

(DOCX)

S2 File. The minimal anonymized data set.

(XLSX)

Data Availability

The minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate our study findings is uploaded as Supporting Information file.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Bezabih L., Abebe T.W., and Fite R.O., Prevalence and factors associated with childhood visual impairment in Ethiopia. Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2017. 11: p. 1941–1948. doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S135011 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Alemu D.S., et al., Prevalence of refractive error and visual impairment among rural school-age children of Goro District, Gurage Zone, Ethiopia. J Ophthalmol, 2014. 24(4): p. 353–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Practice A.O.A.J.O.C., Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guideline: Comprehensive Pediatric Eye and Vision Examination. 2020. 2(2): p. 7. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Ferede A.T., et al., Visual Impairment among Primary School Children in Gondar Town, Northwest Ethiopia. 2020. 2020. doi: 10.1155/2020/6934013 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Darge H.F., et al., The prevalence of visual acuity impairment among school children at Arada Subcity primary schools in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. 2017. 2017. doi: 10.1155/2017/9326108 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Pascolini D. and S.P.J.B.J.o.O Mariotti, Global estimates of visual impairment: 2010. 2012. 96(5): p. 614–618. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Resnikoff S., et al., Global data on visual impairment in the year 2002. 2004. 82: p. 844–851. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Organization, W.H., Preventing blindness in children: report of a WHO/IAPB Scientific Meeting. 2000. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Dhanesha U., et al., Prevalence and causes of visual impairment among schoolchildren in Mekelle, Ethiopia. Cogent medicine, 2018. 5(1): p. 1554832. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Kedir J. and Girma A., Prevalence of refractive error and visual impairment among rural school-age children of Goro District, Gurage Zone, Ethiopia. Ethiopian journal of health sciences, 2014. 24(4): p. 353–358. doi: 10.4314/ejhs.v24i4.11 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Salomão S.R., Mitsuhiro M.R., and R.J.A.d.A.B.d.C Belfort Jr, Visual impairment and blindness: an overview of prevalence and causes in Brazil. 2009. 81(3): p. 539–549. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Solebo A.L. and J.J.A.o.d.i.c Rahi, Epidemiology, aetiology and management of visual impairment in children. 2014. 99(4): p. 375–379. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Bourne R.R., et al., Magnitude, temporal trends, and projections of the global prevalence of blindness and distance and near vision impairment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. 2017. 5(9): p. e888–e897. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Organization W.H., Global Initiative for the Elimination of Avoidable Blindness: action plan 2006–2011. 2007. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Organization, W.H., Global initiative for the elimination of avoidable blindness. 2000, World Health Organization. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Heijthuijsen A.A.M., et al., Causes of severe visual impairment and blindness in children in the Republic of Suriname. 2013. 97(7): p. 812–815. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Moher D., et al., Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Systematic reviews, 2015. 4(1): p. 1–9. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-4-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.JBI, Checklist for prevalence studies- Jonna Briggs institute.
  • 19.JBI, Checklist for Analytical Cross sectional studies- Jonna Briggs Institute.
  • 20.Thylefors B., A global initiative for the elimination of avoidable blindness. American Journal of Ophthalmology, 125(1), 90–93. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9394(99)80239-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Higgins J.P. and S.G.J.S.i.m Thompson, Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysis. 2002. 21(11): p. 1539–1558. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Enxuan Lin, T.T., Yong Chen, Yuedong Wang. Fixed-effects model: the most convincing model for meta-analysis with few studies, https://arxiv.org/abs/2002.04211. 11 Feb 2020 [cited 2022 06/21/2022]; Available from: https://arxiv.org/abs/2002.04211.
  • 23.Darge H.F., THE PREVALENCE OF VISUAL ACUITY IMPAIRMENT AND COLOR BLINDNESS ON SCHOOL AGE CHILDREN OF TWO PRIMARY SCHOOLS IN ADDIS ABABA. 2014, Addis Ababa University. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Hailu Y., Hiko D., and Shaweno T.J.C.O., Prevalence of Visual Impairment and Associated Factors Among Primary Schoolchildren in Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia. 2020. 14: p. 767. doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S245675 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Merrie Y.A., et al., Prevalence And Associated Factors Of Visual Impairment Among School-Age Children In Bahir Dar City, Northwest Ethiopia. 2019. 11: p. 135. doi: 10.2147/OPTO.S213047 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Zelalem M., et al., Prevalence of visual impairment among school children in three primary schools of Sekela Woreda, Amhara regional state, north-west Ethiopia. 2019. 7: p. 2050312119849769. doi: 10.1177/2050312119849769 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Woldeamanuel G.G., et al., Visual impairment and associated factors among primary school children in Gurage Zone, Southern Ethiopia. Afr Health Sci, 2020. 20(1): p. 533–542. doi: 10.4314/ahs.v20i1.60 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Lu Q., et al., A population-based study of visual impairment among pre-school children in Beijing: the Beijing study of visual impairment in children. American journal of ophthalmology, 2009. 147(6): p. 1075–1081. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2008.11.021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Pai A.S.-I., et al., Prevalence and risk factors for visual impairment in preschool children: the Sydney Paediatric Eye Disease Study. Ophthalmology, 2011. 118(8): p. 1495–1500. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2011.01.027 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Salomão S.R., Mitsuhiro M.R., and Belfort R. Jr, Visual impairment and blindness: an overview of prevalence and causes in Brazil. Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências, 2009. 81(3): p. 539–549. doi: 10.1590/s0001-37652009000300017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Gebrie A., et al., Prevalence and associated factors of active trachoma among children in Ethiopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC infectious diseases, 2019. 19(1): p. 1–12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Berhane Y., Worku A., and Bejiga A., National survey on blindness, low vision and trachoma in Ethiopia. Addis Ababa: Federal Ministry of Health of Ethiopia, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Tolla T.T., Visually Impaired Children in some sites of Ethiopia: Review on Prevalence, Causes and Problems. Bahir Dar Journal of Education, 2016. 16(1). [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Borrel A., et al. Child eye health in Africa. in The status and way forward. The African Child Policy Forum Cape Town, South Africa: ORBIS Africa. 2013. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Dagne H., et al., Hand washing practice at critical times and its associated factors among mothers of under five children in Debark town, northwest Ethiopia, 2018. Italian journal of pediatrics, 2019. 45(1): p. 1–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Golovaty I., et al., Access to water source, latrine facilities and other risk factors of active trachoma in Ankober, Ethiopia. PLoS One, 2009. 4(8): p. e6702. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0006702 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Vivas A., et al., Knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) of hygiene among school children in Angolela, Ethiopia. Journal of preventive medicine and hygiene, 2010. 51(2): p. 73. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Guo L., et al., Prevalence and associated factors of myopia among primary and middle school-aged students: a school-based study in Guangzhou. Eye, 2016. 30(6): p. 796–804. doi: 10.1038/eye.2016.39 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Ving Fai Chan

4 Apr 2022

PONE-D-21-27729

Prevalence of visual impairment and associated factors among children in Ethiopia: Systematic review and meta-analysis

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Anley,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 16 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ving Fai Chan, Ph.D., M.Sc., B.Optom.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please provide the full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated

3. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. 

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 

5.  We noticed you have some minor occurrence of overlapping text with the following previous publication(s), which needs to be addressed:

- https://www.hindawi.com/journals/joph/2020/6934013/

- https://bjo.bmj.com/content/bjophthalmol/97/7/812.full.pdf

- https://bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12879-019-4686-8

In your revision ensure you cite all your sources (including your own works), and quote or rephrase any duplicated text outside the methods section. Further consideration is dependent on these concerns being addressed.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Dear Dr Anley,

This paper has been reviewed and the reviewers highlight a number of of strengths and weaknesses.

I could see the merit in this manuscript. However, Reviewer 1 has pointed a few critical points that needs addressing for a systematic review (title, clear research questions, search strategy, management of heterogeneity, etc) before this manuscript is fit to be further consideration. Please pay close attention to the comments. Some may require major changes. Furthermore, there is a need for overall language editing (as pointed out by Reviewer 2). I believe that once these are addressed, the manuscript could be resubmitted for publication.

Regards,

Dr Ving Fai Chan

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: 1.The purpose of this systematic review is to report pooled estimate of the prevalence and associated factors of visual impairment among children in Ethiopia. However the “Determinants of Visual impairment “ it covered were not of interest. As the author had discussed in the article, the cause of visual impairment would be of more clinical interest and value.

2. Literature Searches and Search terms are incomplete. This is suboptimal for publication for systematic review. Search terms should better include any population based study on vision, not only for child. Those studies would include a group of patients in this age range.

3. There is substantive heterogeneity in estimating pooled effect size of factors of visual impairment among children. Please explain the way of management in the method , result and discussion.

4. What is the exact criteria for low vision. In the outcome measurement, line 173 less than 1/18, line 177 less than 6/12.

Also some writing mistakes like in line 107 met analysis.

Reviewer #2: General

The article ‘Prevalence of visual impairment and associated factors among children in Ethiopia:

Systematic review and meta-analysis’ is very interesting and provide useful information to readers.

The manuscript contains original findings.

However, there are few issues need to be consider.

Title Page

The title is appropriate.

Th name of institution should be written in capital letter (page 1 line 5 and line 11).

Abstract

The abstract summarizes clearly and concisely the main finding of the results.

Main Manuscript

1. Introduction

The introduction of the study is appropriate.

Need to rephrase sentence in line 91 and line 92 (page 3).

Paragraph 3 (page 4) is not clear. Need to rephrase/require English editing.

Should delete the abbreviation VI (for visual impairment) (page 4 line 95) and BL (for blindness) (page 4 line 97) since those abbreviation are not consistently used in the text.

2. Methods

The methods give enough detail.

The name of journal should be written in capital letter (page 5 line 137 and line 138).

Need to rephrase sentence in line 142 (page 5).

Should delete the abbreviation VA (for visual acuity) (page 6 line 177) since this abbreviation is not consistently used in the text.

3. Results

The results are presented in a clear and concise manner.

4. Discussion

The discussion interprets the findings based on the results obtained and compare with previous studies for the prevalence of visual impairment.

However, for the associated factors for visual impairment, there is lacking comparison with other studies.

5. Conclusion

The conclusions are valid and based on the results of the study.

References

There are missing name of journal in few number of references.

Figures

The figures and figure legend are appropriate, clear and correctly labelled.

Tables

The tables and table legend are appropriate, clear and correctly labelled.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Reviewer comments.docx

PLoS One. 2022 Jul 21;17(7):e0271433. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0271433.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


18 Apr 2022

Thank you for your constructive comments. We have responded to all comments point by point. The point by point response letter is uploaded with the revised manuscript files.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers comments.docx

Decision Letter 1

Ving Fai Chan

17 May 2022

PONE-D-21-27729R1Prevalence of visual impairment and associated factors among children in Ethiopia: Systematic review and meta-analysisPLOS ONE

Dear Dr Denekew Tenaw Anley,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 01 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ving Fai Chan, Ph.D., M.Sc., B.Optom.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear Dr Denekew Tenaw Anley,

After reviewing the responses to the queries raised by both reviewers, there are still critical issues that need addressing. Please pay attention to Reviewer 1's comments on the principles of conducting of systematic reviewers - research questions, search strategy, definitions and heterogeneity (with its impact on the interpretation of results). I felt that this manuscript has significant public health value, and will offer your team a second revision.

Regards,

Dr Ving Fai Chan

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The answers were not fully satisfying, as follows:

The associated factors included in this systematic review and meta analysis are those identified by the articles included in this study.

Yes, this is the inherent limitation of this study. As the “key question” is “the Prevalence of visual impairment”, it is acceptable. However the value of this systematic review may be limited.

The study was supposed to include both institutional and community based studies, and hence there was no any exclusion made in searching strategy.

My concern is there might be other population based studies which include child. The searching combination " child [Title/Abstract] OR children [Title/Abstract] OR childhood [Title/Abstract] OR "school age children"[Title/Abstract] might exclude these studies.

However, the p-value for the identified I2 values in estimating pooled effect size of factors were found to be insignificant for all factors.

My understanding from table 2, all the I2 indexes were larger than 30%. It indicates the variability in the measured effect sizes across studies is caused by true heterogeneity among studies. Though a nonsignificant value of Q statistics (not I2) suggests that the studies are homogeneous, the Q statistic has limited power to detect heterogeneity in meta-analyses with few studies (ie 2-6 in this study).

Outcomes defined were “low vision”, “blindness”, and “visual impairment”. The outcome of interest for this study is “visual impairment” which can include both low vision and blindness. It is more inclusive than the two aforementioned outcomes. Hence, the last visual acuity, 6/12, is the one which defines visual impairment. Other respective values define low vision and blindness in that order.

This is hard to understand. If visual impairment includes both low vision and blindness, why 6/12 not 6/18?

Reviewer #2: The authors have adequately addressed my comments.

General

The article ‘Prevalence of visual impairment and associated factors among children in Ethiopia:

Systematic review and meta-analysis’ is very interesting and provide useful information to readers.

The manuscript contains original findings.

Title Page

The title is appropriate.

Abstract

The abstract summarizes clearly and concisely the main finding of the results.

Main Manuscript

1. Introduction

The introduction of the study is appropriate.

2. Methods

The methods give enough detail.

3. Results

The results are presented in a clear and concise manner.

4. Discussion

The discussion interprets the findings based on the results obtained and compare with previous studies for the prevalence of visual impairment.

5. Conclusion

The conclusions are valid and based on the results of the study.

Figures

The figures and figure legend are appropriate, clear and correctly labelled.

Tables

The tables and table legend are appropriate, clear and correctly labelled.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2022 Jul 21;17(7):e0271433. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0271433.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


10 Jun 2022

A rebuttal letter 2

Journal name: PLOS ONE

PONE-D-21-27729

Title: Prevalence of visual impairment and associated factors among children in Ethiopia: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Thank you all for giving us your valuable time. The Editor’s, reviewers’ comments, and point by point response of the authors are presented by the following table.

Comments from reviewer #1 Authors’ response

1. The study was supposed to include both institutional and community based studies, and hence there was no any exclusion made in searching strategy.

My concern is there might be other population based studies which include child. The searching combination " child [Title/Abstract] OR children [Title/Abstract] OR childhood [Title/Abstract] OR "school age children"[Title/Abstract] might exclude these studies. Thank you for your comment. As we have said before, there was no any exclusion made in the searching strategy regarding to institutions where the studies might be conducted. Therefore, there was no way that community based studies on visual impairment among children would be missed.

2. My understanding from table 2, all the I2 indexes were larger than 30%. It indicates the variability in the measured effect sizes across studies is caused by true heterogeneity among studies. Though a non-significant value of Q statistics (not I2) suggests that the studies are homogeneous, the Q statistic has limited power to detect heterogeneity in meta-analyses with few studies (ie 2-6 in this study).

Thank you reviewer for your valuable comment. The insignificant p-values of Q statistics assured us the absence of true heterogeneity in the effect sizes even though it has limited power. We preferred not to use random effect model even though the I statistics is elevated, for it is not advisable to use it when studies are small.

3. Outcomes defined were “low vision”, “blindness”, and “visual impairment”. The outcome of interest for this study is “visual impairment” which can include both low vision and blindness. It is more inclusive than the two aforementioned outcomes. Hence, the last visual acuity, 6/12, is the one which defines visual impairment. Other respective values define low vision and blindness in that order.

This is hard to understand. If visual impairment includes both low vision and blindness, why 6/12 not 6/18?

Thank you for this important comment. Something which has to be clear here is that our outcome of interest is “visual impairment” of any extent. We can forget about “low vision” and “Blindness”. The maximum visual acuity measurement value which defines visual impairment is 6/12. All results of visual acuity measurement bellow 6/12 will also indicate the presence of visual impairment. As you have said, visual acuity measurement 6/18 also indicates visual impairment, but it is not the maximum limit which defines the outcome.

Comment from Reviewer #2:

The authors have adequately addressed my comments. Thank you dear reviewer, for giving us your valuable time for the improvement of our manuscript.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers comments 2.docx

Decision Letter 2

Ving Fai Chan

15 Jun 2022

PONE-D-21-27729R2Prevalence of visual impairment and associated factors among children in Ethiopia: Systematic review and meta-analysisPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Anley,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Thank you for your responses to Reviewer 1. I suggest that you make a few minor edits in your manuscript so that readers not from the eye field can understand the subject matter better. For example:

a. You can include a line in your Methods, highlighting that "the search strategy included both institutional and community-based studies". The aim is to ensure your readers understand that the robustness of your search strategy.

b. Also in Methods, highlight that "we have chosen X, instead of random effect model, even though the I statistics is elevated because the studies are small (cite)." The aim is to ensure your readers understand the rationale of your choice of analysis.

c. Also in Methods, highlight that "we defined vision impairment as vision worse than 6/12 in the better eye as it includes low vision (VA definition) and blindness (VA definition)".

I hope this helps.

Please submit your revised manuscript by 15 July 2022. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ving Fai Chan, Ph.D., M.Sc., B.Optom.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2022 Jul 21;17(7):e0271433. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0271433.r006

Author response to Decision Letter 2


29 Jun 2022

A rebuttal letter 3

Journal name: PLOS ONE

PONE-D-21-27729

Title: Prevalence of visual impairment and associated factors among children in Ethiopia: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Thank you for giving us your valuable time. The Editor’s comments and point by point responses of the authors are presented by the following table.

Comments from the editor Authors’ response

1. Thank you for your responses to Reviewer 1. I suggest that you make a few minor edits in your manuscript so that readers not from the eye field can understand the subject matter better. For example:

a. You can include a line in your Methods, highlighting that "the search strategy included both institutional and community-based studies". The aim is to ensure your readers understand that the robustness of your search strategy.

b. Also in Methods, highlight that "we have chosen X, instead of random effect model, even though the I statistics is elevated because the studies are small (cite)." The aim is to ensure your readers understand the rationale of your choice of analysis.

c. Also in Methods, highlight that "we defined vision impairment as vision worse than 6/12 in the better eye as it includes low vision (VA definition) and blindness (VA definition)".

Thank you for your valuable comments. As per your comment, we have highlighted each responses mentioned “a to c” in the methods and materials section of the revised manuscript. The changes made are also indicated in the revised manuscript with track changes.

2. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. Thank you for your valuable comment. As per your recommendation, we have reviewed the references for completeness and correctness. We found that all are correct and complete. No retracted papers are cited.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to editors and reviewers comments 3.docx

Decision Letter 3

Ving Fai Chan

1 Jul 2022

Prevalence of visual impairment and associated factors among children in Ethiopia: Systematic review and meta-analysis

PONE-D-21-27729R3

Dear Dr. Anley,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Ving Fai Chan, Ph.D., M.Sc., B.Optom.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Acceptance letter

Ving Fai Chan

11 Jul 2022

PONE-D-21-27729R3

Prevalence of visual impairment and associated factors among children in Ethiopia: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Dear Dr. Anley:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr Ving Fai Chan

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. PRISMA 2020 checklist filled.

    (DOCX)

    S2 File. The minimal anonymized data set.

    (XLSX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Reviewer comments.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers comments.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers comments 2.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to editors and reviewers comments 3.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    The minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate our study findings is uploaded as Supporting Information file.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES