ArticleRisk management and healthcare policy2014
"It is the left eye, right?".
Article in Risk management and healthcare policy, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Inspecting the Retina: Oculomotor Patterns and Accuracy in Fundus Image Interpretation by Novice Versus Experienced Eye Care Practitioners.Journal of eye movement research · 2026Article
- A standardized marking procedure for ENT operations to prevent wrong-site surgery: development, establishment and subsequent evaluation among patients and medical personnel.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2022Article
- Saving of Time Using a Software-Based versus a Manual Workflow for Toric Intraocular Lens Calculation and Implantation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Evaluating Surgical Risk Using FMEA and MULTIMOORA Methods under a Single-Valued Trapezoidal Neutrosophic Environment.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveBecause wrong-site confusion is among the most common mistakes in the operations of paired organs, we have examined the frequency of wrong-sided confusions that could theoretically occur in cataract surgeries in the absence of preoperative verification.
methodsTen cataract surgeons participated in the study. The surgeons were asked to complete a questionnaire that included their demographic data, occupational habits, and their approach to and the handling of patients preoperatively. On the day of operation, the surgeons were asked to recognize the side of the operation from the patient's name only. At the second stage of the study, surgeons were asked to recognize the side of the operation while standing a 2-meter distance from the patient's face. The surgeons' answers were compared to the actual operation side. Patients then underwent a full time-out procedure, which included side marking before the operation.
resultsOf the total 67 patients, the surgeons correctly identified the operated side of the eye in 49 (73%) by name and in 56 (83%) by looking at patients' faces. Wrong-side identification correlated with the time lapsed from the last preoperative examination (P=0.034). The number of cataract surgeries performed by the same surgeon (on the same day) also correlated to the number of wrong identifications (P=0.000). Surgeon seniority or age did not correlate to the number of wrong identifications.
conclusionThis study illustrates the high error rate that can result in the absence of side marking prior to cataract surgery, as well as in operations on other paired organs.
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.