Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24723617›Full record

ReviewThe British journal of ophthalmology2014

Teleglaucoma: ready to go?

N G Strouthidis, G Chandrasekharan, J P Diamond, I E Murdoch

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The British journal of ophthalmology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Smartphones, tele-ophthalmology, and VISION 2020.International journal of ophthalmology · 2017
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Teleophthalmology: improving patient outcomes?Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2016
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

N G StrouthidisNIHR Biomedical Research Centre at Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and UCL Institute of Ophthalmology, London, UK Singapore Eye Research Institute, Singapore, Singapore.
G ChandrasekharanInstitute of Ophthalmology, London, UK.
J P DiamondBristol Eye Hospital, Bristol, UK.
I E MurdochInstitute of Ophthalmology, London, UK.

Funding

Department of Health
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Telemedicine technologies and services allow today's ophthalmic clinicians to remotely diagnose, manage and monitor several ophthalmic conditions from a distance. But is this the case for glaucomas? There has been a proliferation of telemedicine friendly devices in recent years that improves the capabilities of the clinician in managing glaucomas. The existing instruments still need to align themselves with accepted industry standards. There are successful programmes running in several areas of the world. The safety and efficacy of these programmes needs further exploration. The inability of a single device or test to diagnose glaucomas satisfactorily has also hampered progress in remotely diagnosing these conditions. There is, however, significant potential for telemedicine-friendly devices to remotely monitor the progress of glaucoma and, thereby, reduce some of the workload on an overstretched health service.

Indexed as

Diagnostic Techniques, OphthalmologicalGlaucoma, Open-AngleHumansIntraocular PressureState MedicineTelemedicineUnited KingdomIntraocular PressureOptical CoherenceRemote ConsultationTelemedicineTomography

Identifiers

PMID24723617
PMCPMC4251299

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.