ArticleAtencion primaria2007
[Usefulness of a glaucoma and ocular hypertension screening strategy in primary care].
Article in Atencion primaria, 2007. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patient preferences and treatment safety for uncomplicated vulvovaginal candidiasis in primary health care.BMC public health · 2011Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the usefulness of a glaucoma and intraocular hypertension screening strategy for new cases detected. To evaluate the acceptability of taking intra-ocular pressure (IOP) and the appearance of side effects.
designCross-sectional, descriptive study.
settingAn urban health centre and the ophthalmology clinic of its main hospital.
participantsA total of 2044 patients aged over 40, 63.5% women and 36.5% men, with a mean age of 61.23 (SD, 11.42). They were selected by consecutive sampling from patients who visited the health centre over a 9-month period. Subjects diagnosed with glaucoma, ocular hypertension (OH), conjunctivitis, or corneal pathology were excluded.
interventionsTaking of IOP with Tonopen XL in primary care. Subjects with IOP > or = 21 mm Hg were referred to ophthalmology. In these patients, IOP was measured with Goldmann, and patients with confirmed OH received ophthalmoscopy and campimetry. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: Percentage of subjects with glaucoma, suspected glaucoma, and OH confirmed in ophthalmology. Positive predictive value (PPV) for OH.
resultsOne hundred subjects with OH were detected (4.89%; 95% CI, 3.93%-5.85%), of whom 21 were diagnosed with glaucoma (1.04%; 95% CI, 0.57-1.49) and 10 with suspected glaucoma (0.49%; 95% CI, 0.16-0.82). The PPV for OH was 44.27%. The acceptability of the test was 98.09%. No patients presented with side-effects following the taking of their IOP.
conclusionsThe strategy evaluated is useful in terms of the number of subjects with glaucoma and OH detected. The acceptability of taking IOP with Tonopen XL was high.
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.