ArticleOphthalmic epidemiology2019
Leveraging Electronic Health Records to Identify and Characterize Patients with Low Vision.
Article in Ophthalmic epidemiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Using Electronic Clinical Decision Support to Examine Vision Rehabilitation Referrals and Practice Guidelines in Ophthalmology.Translational vision science & technology · 2022Article
- Disparities in Vision Health and Eye Care.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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo use electronic health record (EHR) data to estimate the prevalence and characteristics of low-vision (LV) patients.
methodsEHR data were obtained for all patients at the nine clinical locations of the Wilmer Eye Institute in 2014. LV status at each visit was defined as visual acuity (VA) worse than 20/40 in the better-seeing eye. Prevalence and incidence estimates were determined over a 12-month period. Demographic and clinical data were used to compare the characteristics of patients with and without LV. Logistic regression analyses were used to determine prevalence and incidence estimates adjusted for age, sex, race, and ethnicity.
resultsA total of 100,755 patients were included in the analysis. There were 7752 (7.7%) prevalent and 1962 (2.1%) incident cases of LV. Among patients with LV, 55% had VA between 20/40 and 20/60. Outside of LV clinics, retina and glaucoma clinics had the highest prevalence (18% and 14%, respectively) and incidence (5% and 4%, respectively) of LV. The urban hospital center had twice the prevalence of LV than suburban clinics (11.5% vs. 5.6%). The odds of prevalent LV was greatest among patients 80 years and older (odds ratio = 6.18; 95% confidence interval: 5.62-6.80) as compared to those 20-39 years old.
conclusionsEHR can be used to estimate the prevalence and describe the characteristics of patients with LV seeking ophthalmic care. The highest prevalence rates of LV are observed in the urban setting and among patients obtaining retina and glaucoma care.
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.