Observational studyJAMA ophthalmology2018
Utilization of Ophthalmologist Consultation for Emergency Care at a University Hospital.
Observational study in JAMA ophthalmology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Survey of On-Call Ophthalmology Consultation Availability Across Emergency Rooms in Puerto Rico.Cureus · 2025Article
- Demographic and socioeconomic disparities in receipt of ophthalmology consultation for facial trauma.BMJ open ophthalmology · 2023Article
- Designing and developing a digital equity dashboard for the emergency department.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2023Article
- Inequities and Research Gaps in Ophthalmology: A Scoping Review.JAMA ophthalmology · 2023Article
- The burden of flashes and floaters in traditional general emergency services and utilization of ophthalmology on-call consultation: a cross-sectional study.BMC ophthalmology · 2022Article
- The impact of COVID-19 related national lockdown on ophthalmic emergency in Italy: A multicenter study.European journal of ophthalmology · 2022Article
- Developing an electronic health record-derived health equity dashboard to improve learner access to data and metrics.AEM education and training · 2021Article
- Utilization of emergency ophthalmology services in Taiwan: a nationwide population study.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Nonmydriatic Fundus Photography in Patients with Acute Vision Loss.Telemedicine journal and e-health : the official journal of the American Telemedicine Association · 2019Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: Nearly 2 million patients visit emergency departments (EDs) because of eye concerns annually in the United States. How hospitals currently assign these patients to treatment is important for designing systems that equitably allocate resources for eye care in urgent settings. Objective: To investigate factors associated with ophthalmology consultation for eye-related adult ED encounters to assess possible disparities by sex, race/ethnicity, language preference, or residential distance from the medical center. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective observational study of 13 361 adult ED encounters associated with an eye-related billing diagnosis between January 1, 2010, and September 30, 2015, at the University of Michigan Medical Center in Ann Arbor. Exposures: Measures available from the University of Michigan clinical data warehouse included age, sex, race/ethnicity, preferred language, home distance from the ED, calendar year of encounter, and Charlson-Deyo Comorbidity Index score. Main Outcomes and Measures: Association of the ED encounter with ophthalmology consultation. An ophthalmology consultation was identified by cross-referencing ophthalmology faculty and clinical instructors from 2010 to 2015 against billing providers for consultations using the Charlson-Deyo Comorbidity Index score and billing codes. Measures included patient age, sex, race/ethnicity, home address, preferred language (English vs non-English), and calendar year of encounter. Results: Among the 13 361 encounters, 6840 (51.2%) involved a female patient. Mean (SD) age at encounter was 50.7 (19.3) years; 10 033 patients (75.1%) were of white and 1969 (14.7%) of black race/ethnicity. English was the preferred language for 13 022 patients (97.5%). The ophthalmology service was consulted in 5289 encounters (39.6%). Black patients had significantly lower odds of an ophthalmology consultation than white patients (odds ratio [OR], 0.85; 95% CI, 0.75-0.96). Patients who preferred a non-English language had significantly lower odds of receiving an ophthalmology consultation (OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.55-0.98). Conclusions and Relevance: Many of the 13 361 eye-related ED encounters were managed by ED clinicians with no ophthalmology consultation. Patients who were black or who preferred a language other than English were less likely to have an ophthalmologist involved in their care. The associations found in this observational study do not imply causation but suggest disparities in care that should be further investigated.
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.