ReviewDer Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft2018
[Registry-based research in ophthalmology].
Review in Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ophthalmic registries for rare eye diseases.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2022Pooled it
- Promotion of training course on ICD-10 Poisoning coding : necessity to adopt preventive strategies.BMC medical education · 2023Article
- [oregis-The German ophthalmological registry].Die Ophthalmologie · 2023Article
- [Status and perspectives of registry-based studies in German ophthalmology].Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Medical registries and registry studies are frequently used for health services research as they represent a valuable means of capturing real-life data. Registry studies are particularly suitable for rare diseases for which epidemiological population-based or randomized controlled clinical studies are difficult. The are many examples of successful medical registries that have not only contributed to both epidemiological and clinical research, but which have also improved health service delivery. Only few ophthalmological medical registries are currently available. For non-infectious uveitis in children and adolescents with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), a rare disease entity, there is a need for data on, e.g., treatment, long-term outcomes, and risk factors for progression. The advantages for this disease of a registry with uveitis module from which numerous scientific publications and guidelines have been derived has been proven. Thus, we use the example of non-infectious uveitis to discuss the benefits of registries for other areas of ophthalmology.
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.