ArticleTransactions of the American Ophthalmological Society2007
Preventing surgical confusions in ophthalmology (an American Ophthalmological Society thesis).
Article in Transactions of the American Ophthalmological Society, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Large-scale observational study of AI-based patient and surgical material verification system in ophthalmology: real-world evaluation in 37 529 cases.BMJ quality & safety · 2025Observational
- Deep Learning-Based System for Preoperative Safety Management in Cataract Surgery.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Incidence of Wrong-Site Surgery List Errors for a 2-Year Period in a Single National Health Service Board.Journal of patient safety · 2020Article
- Sentinel events in ophthalmology: experience from Hong Kong.Journal of ophthalmology · 2015Article
- "It is the left eye, right?".Risk management and healthcare policy · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeSurgical confusions have been rarely studied, especially in ophthalmology. The author hypothesized that such confusions occur rarely but are unacceptable in the public, legal, and regulatory arenas; often occur in circumstances presenting predictable risk; more often involve wrong lens implant than wrong eye, procedure, or patient; and can be prevented by following the Universal Protocol.
methodsA retrospective series of 106 cases occurring between 1982 and 2005 included 42 closed files from the Ophthalmic Mutual Insurance Company and 64 cases reported to the New York State Health Department. Records were grouped by procedure planned and analyzed to answer these questions: How did the error occur? By whom and when was the error recognized? Who was responsible? Was the patient informed? What was done to the patient? What was the outcome? What liability payments were made? What policy changes or sanctions resulted? Was the error preventable by following the Universal Protocol?
resultsThe most common confusion was wrong lens implant, accounting for 67 (63%) of the 106 cases. Wrong eye surgery occurred in 15 cases, wrong eye blocks in 14, wrong patient/procedure in 8, and wrong corneal transplant in 2. In 16 cases, the Universal Protocol would have been unlikely to prevent the confusion.
conclusionsSurgical confusions occur infrequently and usually cause little or no permanent injury, but they may be devastating to the patient, the physician, and the profession. Measures to prevent such confusions, including the Universal Protocol and related checklists, deserve the acceptance, support, and active participation of ophthalmologists.
Indexed as
Identifiers
18427628PMC2258113W2151489056What 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.