Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29543941›Full record

Observational studyJAMA ophthalmology2018

Utilization of Ophthalmologist Consultation for Emergency Care at a University Hospital.

Sophia Y Wang, Mariam S Hamid, David C Musch, Maria A Woodward

Open access · greenAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Designing and developing a digital equity dashboard for the emergency department.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2023
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Nonmydriatic Fundus Photography in Patients with Acute Vision Loss.Telemedicine journal and e-health : the official journal of the American Telemedicine Association · 2019
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Sophia Y WangByers Eye Institute, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California.
Mariam S HamidMedical student, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor.
David C MuschDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, W. K. Kellogg Eye Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Maria A WoodwardDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, W. K. Kellogg Eye Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
University of Michigan–Ann Arbor · USStanford University · US

Funding

Telemedicine For Anterior Eye DiseasesK23EY023596 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI WOODWARD, MARIA ANNEKE · 2013 to 2017
$1.1M
NEI NIH HHS K23 EY023596
6 · The paper itself

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

Hospitals, UniversityEmergency Medical ServicesEye DiseasesFemaleHumansMaleMichiganMiddle AgedOphthalmologistsPrevalenceReferral and ConsultationRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID29543941
PMCPMC5876882
OpenAlexW2789506040

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.