ArticleEye (London, England)2017
A review of 145 234 ophthalmic patient episodes lost to follow-up.
Article in Eye (London, England), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 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
22 citing papers in PubMed, 40 citations in OpenAlex.
- Home-Based Visual Field Monitoring for Open-Angle Glaucoma Using a Web-Enabled Quantitative Perimeter (Perimouse): An Evaluation Over Six Months.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
- Factors associated with lost to follow-up and delayed follow-up in patients with choroidal nevus.Eye (London, England) · 2025Article
- 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
- A Comparison of Ultra-Widefield Imaging Quality Obtained with Zeiss Clarus and Optos for Virtual Medical Retina Services.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Post COVID glaucoma service redesign utilising electronic patient triage and community optometry clinics (Fife, Scotland 2020-2022).BMC ophthalmology · 2025Article
- The association between glaucoma treatment adherence with disease progression and loss to follow-up.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Nationwide consensus on quality indicators to assess glaucoma care: A modified Delphi approach.European journal of ophthalmology · 2024Article
- Disengagement and loss to follow-up in intravitreal injection clinics for neovascular age-related macular degeneration.Eye (London, England) · 2023Article
- A scoping review on the factors associated with the lost to follow-up (LTFU) amongst patients with chronic disease in ambulatory care of high-income countries (HIC).BMC health services research · 2023Article
- 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
- Managing risk in the face of adversity: design and outcomes of rapid glaucoma assessment clinics during a pandemic recovery.Eye (London, England) · 2022Article
- An Initiative to Improve Follow-up of Patients with Glaucoma.Ophthalmology science · 2021Article
- COVID-19 in Ophthalmology. Current Disease Status and Challenges during Clinical Practice.Maedica · 2021Article
- Ophthalmic Emergency Department Visits: Factors Associated With Loss to Follow-up.American journal of ophthalmology · 2021Article
- Assault-related severe ocular chemical injury at a London ophthalmic referral hospital: a 3-year retrospective observational study.BMJ open · 2020Observational
- Sustainable practice of ophthalmology during COVID-19: challenges and solutions.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2020Review
- Outcome of Esotropia Surgery in 2 Tertiary Hospitals in Cameroon.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2020Article
- Tackling the NHS glaucoma clinic backlog issue.Eye (London, England) · 2019Article
- Action on neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD): recommendations for management and service provision in the UK hospital eye service.Eye (London, England) · 2019Article
- Comment on 'A review of 145 234 ophthalmic patient episodes lost to follow-up'.Eye (London, England) · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
PurposeLost to follow-up and delays in follow-up care are a major problem in chronic diseases, particularly when irreversible progression precedes symptoms. The NPSA Glaucoma Safety Alert in 2009 highlighted the risk and requirements for consistent robust review systems in ophthalmology. In response, Moorfields Eye Hospital reviewed the records of all patients in all subspecialties without review appointments booked. The purpose of this study was to determine whether ophthalmic patients lost to follow-up had come to harm and develop investigation techniques to optimise safety, which do not put excessive demands on clinical staff time.MethodsThe health records of all patients lost to follow-up (LTFU) between July 2007 and November 2012 were reviewed for evidence of clinical harm using a risk-based strategy involving an initial administrative review, then a clinician led electronic patient record review, followed by a review of paper records by clinicians. The final stage was a clinical outpatient review where required determined by clinical risk.ResultsPatients identified as lost to follow-up were 145 234; 79 562 episodes were closed following administrative review; 50 519 were discharged following clinician examination of paper records; 12 316 patients required clinical review; and 16 serious incidents were identified, of which 14 patients had glaucoma, 1 a medical retinal condition with secondary glaucoma, and 1 an oculoplastic condition. A number of actions implemented hospital wide are described which minimise future risk.ConclusionRisk from delays or lost to follow-up care continue and require better capacity and more accurate data nationally.
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.