ArticleSultan Qaboos University medical journal2017
Vision Screening of Ophthalmic Nursing Staff in a Tertiary Eye Care Hospital: Outcomes and ocular healthcare-seeking behaviours.
Article in Sultan Qaboos University medical journal, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Artificial intelligence improves accuracy, efficiency, and reliability of a handheld infrared eccentric autorefractor for adult refractometry.International journal of ophthalmology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to evaluate ocular healthcare-seeking behaviours and vision screening outcomes of nursing staff at a tertiary eye care hospital.
methodsThis study was conducted between April and September 2016 among all 500 nurses employed at the King Khaled Eye Specialist Hospital, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Data were collected on age, gender, use of visual aids, the presence of diabetes, a history of refractive surgery and date of last ocular health check-up. Participants were tested using a handheld Spot
resultsA total of 150 nurses participated in the study (response rate: 30.0%). The mean age was 41.2 ± 8.9 years old. Distance spectacles, reading spectacles and both types of spectacles were used by 37 (24.7%), 32 (21.3%) and 10 (6.7%) nurses, respectively. A total of 58 nurses (38.7%) failed the vision screening test. Visual defects were detected for the first time in 13 nurses (8.7%). With regards to regular eye checkups, 77 participants (51.3%) reported acceptable ocular healthcare-seeking behaviours; this factor was significantly associated with age and the use of visual aids (
conclusionA high proportion of participants failed the vision screening tests and only half displayed good ocular healthcare-seeking behaviours. This is concerning as ophthalmic nurses are likely to face fewer barriers to eye care services than the general population.
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.