Trial reportThe British journal of ophthalmology2003
Is visual outcome compromised when next day review is omitted after phacoemulsification surgery? A randomised control trial.
Trial report in The British journal of ophthalmology, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 60 citations in OpenAlex.
- Can the postoperative follow-up visit be deferred up to four weeks after an uneventful cataract surgery? - A randomized controlled trial.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2021Trial
- First postoperative day review after uneventful phacoemulsification cataract surgery: is it necessary?BMC research notes · 2012Trial
- Deferring Postoperative Follow‑Up Visits up to 4 Weeks After Uneventful Cataract Surgery in a Tertiary Level Eye Hospital: Protocol for a Prospective, Quantitative, Experimental Control Study.JMIR research protocols · 2023Article
- [Position paper and recommendations for action for ecologically sustainable ophthalmology : Statement of the German Society of Ophthalmology (DOG) and the German Professional Association of Ophthalmologists (BVA)].Die Ophthalmologie · 2023Review
- [Sustainability in ophthalmology : Adaptation to the climate crisis and mitigation].Die Ophthalmologie · 2022Review
- Rethinking Elective Cataract Surgery Diagnostics, Assessments, and Tools after the COVID-19 Pandemic Experience and Beyond: Insights from the EUROCOVCAT Group.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
- Article
- Is a Day 1 postoperative review following ab interno Xen gel stent surgery for glaucoma needed?Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2018Article
- Randomized Crossover Study Showing Nurse-Led Same Day Review Replacing Next Day Review in Uneventful Phacoemulsification to Be Safe and Efficacious.Journal of ophthalmology · 2017Article
- Corneal oedema after phacoemulsification in the early postoperative period: A qualitative comparative case-control study between diabetics and non-diabetics.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2016Article
- Is the 1-day postoperative IOP check needed post uncomplicated phacoemulsification in patients with glaucoma and ocular hypertension?Eye (London, England) · 2015Article
- Immediate Sequential Bilateral Cataract Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of ophthalmology · 2015Review
- Postoperative IOP prophylaxis practice following uncomplicated cataract surgery: a UK-wide consultant survey.BMC ophthalmology · 2005Article
- Comparison of safety and number of post-operative visits of patients in convenient day versus conventional first day follow-up after phacoemulsification.Pakistan journal of medical sciencesArticle
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
aimsTo examine the safety implications of omitting first day clinical review following phacoemulsification cataract surgery.
methods362 patients were randomly assigned to "same day discharge" (SDD) or "next day review" (NDR). All patients were reviewed approximately 2 weeks after surgery.
resultsOf the 174 patients randomised to NDR, 14 (8.0%) were treated for raised intraocular pressure (25-48 mm Hg) on the first postoperative day. Four received increased topical steroids for uveitis (two) and corneal oedema (two). One patient was treated for a significant wound leak. 12 (6.9%) required additional reviews before 2 week follow up for treatment of the following complications: drop toxicity (six), raised intraocular pressure (five), and corneal abrasion (one). Of the 188 randomised to SDD, six (3.2%) returned to the department before the planned review for reassurance of patients' concerns regarding eye symptoms (three), drop toxicity (one) and follow up of previously raised intraocular pressure (one). There were two cases of iris prolapse in the SDD group. In one case, the complication was anticipated and early review had been arranged. Postoperative acuities of 6/12 or better were achieved in 83% of both SDD and NDR patients (p = 0.96 by chi(2) test). Postoperative quality of life scores at 4 months indicating "no or hardly any concern about vision" (VCM1 questionnaire index <1.0) were achieved in 67% SDD and 72.5% NDR (p = 0.26).
conclusionThe intention to discharge patients on the day of surgery, with planned postoperative review at 2 weeks, was associated with a low frequency of serious ocular complications. Differences in the proportions achieving a good visual outcome between the two groups, based on 2 week visual acuity and 4 month quality of life, were not significant.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.