ArticlePloS one2019
Comparison of glaucoma patients referred by glaucoma screening versus referral from primary eye clinic.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- ChatGPT-Assisted Glaucoma Diagnosis: A Health-Equitable Multi-Ancestry Analysis Using Visual Field and Optical Coherence Tomography Data.American journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
- JustRAIGS: Justified Referral in AI Glaucoma Screening Challenge.IEEE transactions on medical imaging · 2026Article
- A deep-learning system predicts glaucoma incidence and progression using retinal photographs.The Journal of clinical investigation · 2022Article
- Quality of referrals for glaucoma assessment: a cross-sectional survey of clinical data and outcomes.International ophthalmology · 2021Article
- Aspects of Tertiary Prevention in Patients with Primary Open Angle Glaucoma.Journal of personalized medicine · 2021Article
- Evaluation of Routine Health Examination for Screening Primary Open Angle Glaucoma in Eastern China: A Hospital-Based Cross-Sectional Study.Risk management and healthcare policy · 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo investigate whether mass glaucoma screening relative to opportunistic case finding at a primary eye clinic is helpful for early detection of glaucoma.
methodsSubjects referred by glaucoma screening (by non-contact tonometry and non-mydriatic fundus photography; group A, n = 220) and from a primary eye clinic (group B, n = 327) were retrospectively recruited. The positive predictive value (PPV) for glaucoma and the rate of glaucoma awareness were compared. Also, for the newly diagnosed glaucoma ('definite glaucoma') patients, the demographics and structural and functional severities of glaucoma were compared.
resultsThe PPV for definite glaucoma was 25.5% for group A and 52.4% for group B. The rate of false-positive for 'glaucoma referral to tertiary hospital' was significantly higher for group A than for group B (38.6 vs. 18.3%, P < 0.001). Among the definite-glaucoma patients (group A: n = 56; group B: n = 182), the proportion of glaucoma awareness was significantly higher in group B (69.2%) than in group A (8.9%, P < 0.001). The mean deviation (MD) of visual field (VF) was significantly higher in group A than in group B (-3.08 ± 3.99 vs. -6.70 ± 7.29 dB, Padjusted = 0.040), and the inferior and inferotemporal ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer (GCIPL) thicknesses tended to be greater in group A than in group B, with marginal significance (Padjusted < 0.10).
conclusionsGlaucoma screening can be helpful for early detection of glaucoma. However, improvement of the screening strategy is needed in order to enhance its specificity for glaucoma.
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.