ArticleEye (London, England)2016
Wrong intraocular lens events-what lessons have we learned? A review of incidents reported to the National Reporting and Learning System: 2010-2014 versus 2003-2010.
Article in Eye (London, England), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Identifying a list of healthcare 'never events' to effect system change: a systematic review and narrative synthesis.BMJ open quality · 2023Pooled it
- Validity of scoring systems for the assessment of technical and non-technical skills in ophthalmic surgery-a systematic review.Eye (London, England) · 2021Pooled it
- Adverse Events in the Operating Room: Definitions, Prevalence, and Characteristics. A Systematic Review.World journal of surgery · 2019Pooled it
- Virtual reality simulator-based assessment of non-technical skills in eye surgery: managing complex cataract surgery.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- 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
- Patient safety in eye care: a multi-method analysis of reported incidents involving implementation of care and clinical assessment in England and Wales.Eye (London, England) · 2025Article
- Unravelling ChatGPT's potential in summarising qualitative in-depth interviews.Eye (London, England) · 2025Article
- Post cataract surgery refractive surprise due to intraocular lens mislabeling.Clinical case reports · 2024Article
- Simulation-based training for intraoperative posterior capsule rupture management: an analysis of nontechnical skills development and the relationship between technical and nontechnical skills.Eye (London, England) · 2024Article
- Unexpected Poor Vision within 24 h of Uneventful Phacoemulsification Surgery-A Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
- A mixed-methods characterisation of patient safety incidents by primary eye care practitioners.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2022Article
- Refractive surprise after cataract surgery secondary to smeared optics of swept-source optical coherence tomography biometer: a case report.BMC ophthalmology · 2020Article
- "Numbers sometimes lie"- refractive surprise following IOL mislabeling by the manufacturer.Eye (London, England) · 2019Review
- Is qualitative research under-represented in ophthalmology journals?Eye (London, England) · 2017Article
- In Vivo Intraocular Lens Thickness Measurement and Power Estimation Using Optical Coherence Tomography.Journal of ophthalmic & vision researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
PurposeTo identify the causal factors in wrong intraocular lens (IOL) events from a national data set and to compare with similar historical data (2003-2010) prior to mandatory checklist use, for the purpose of developing strategies to prevent never events.MethodsData from wrong IOL patient safety incidents (PSIs) submitted to the National Reporting and Learning System (2010-2014) were reviewed by thematic analysis and compared with the data previously collected by the group using the same methodology.ResultsOne hundred and seventy eight wrong IOL PSIs were identified. The contributory factors included: transcription errors (n=26); wrong patient biometry (n=21); wrong IOL selection (n=16); changes in planned procedure (n=16); incorrect IOL brought into theatre (n=11); left/right eye selection errors (n=9); communication errors (n=9); and positive/negative IOL power errors (n=9). In 44 PSIs, no causal factor was reported, limiting the learning value of such reports. Compared with the data from previous years, biometry errors were much reduced but IOL transcription and documentation errors were greater, particularly if further checks did not refer to the original source documentation. IOL exchange surgery was reported in 45 cases.ConclusionsThe selection and implantation of the correct IOL is a complex process which is not adequately addressed by existing checking procedures. Despite the introduction of surgical checklists, wrong IOL incidents continue to occur and are probably under-reported. Human or behavioural factors are heavily implicated in these errors and need to be addressed by novel approaches, including simulation training. There is also scope to further improve the quality and detail of incident reporting and analysis to enhance patient safety.
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.