ArticleDeutsches Arzteblatt international2017
Red Eye: A Guide for Non-specialists.
Article in Deutsches Arzteblatt international, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- [71/f + 3/m with a red eye : Preparation for the medical specialist examination ophthalmology: part 4].Die Ophthalmologie · 2026Article
- Global Perspectives on Therapy for Noninfectious Conjunctival Hyperemia: A Narrative Review.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2026Review
- Human tear film protein sampling using soft contact lenses.Clinical proteomics · 2024Article
- Outcomes of a Short Course in Improving Eye Healthcare Knowledge and Skills Among Final-Year Medical Students.Medical science educator · 2022Article
- Ocular redness - I: Etiology, pathogenesis, and assessment of conjunctival hyperemia.The ocular surface · 2021Review
- Virtual consultation for red eye.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2021Review
- Addenda.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2017Article
- Useful Pointers.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2017Article
- In Reply.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2017Article
- Misuse of Cortisone Eyedrops.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on byUseful Pointers.2017
- Erratum issuedErratum.2017
- Erratum issuedAddenda.2017
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRed eye can arise as a manifestation of many different systemic and ophthalmological diseases. The physician whom the patient first consults for this problem is often not an ophthalmologist. A correct assessment of the urgency of the situation is vitally important for the planning of further diagnostic evaluation and treatment.
methodsThis review is based on pertinent publications retrieved by a selective literature search in PubMed in August 2016 as well as on the authors' own clinical and scientific experience.
resultsPrimary care physicians typically see 4-10 patients per week who complain of ocular symptoms. Most of them have red eye as the major clinical finding. A detailed history, baseline ophthalmological tests, and accompanying manifestations can narrow down the differential diagnosis. The duration and laterality of symptoms (uni- vs. bilateral) and the intensity of pain are the main criteria allowing the differentiation of non-critical changes that can be cared for by a general practitioner from diseases calling for elective referral to an ophthalmologist and eye emergencies requiring urgent ophthalmic surgery.
conclusionThe differential diagnosis of red eye can be narrowed down rapidly with simple baseline tests and targeted questioning. Patients with ocular emergencies should be referred to an ophthalmologist at once, as should all patients whose diagnosis is in doubt.
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.