ArticleEye (London, England)2019
Going paperless: improved cataract surgery outcome data quality in a new fully electronic unit.
Article in Eye (London, England), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of Routine Clinical Deployment of an Autonomous Artificial Intelligence Assistant for Cataract Follow-Up in the National Health Service.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
- Visual and Refractive Outcomes of Cataract Surgeries Performed in One Year in a Private Practice Setting: Review of 2714 Procedures.Journal of ophthalmology · 2020Article
- Auditing service delivery in glaucoma clinics using visual field records: a feasibility study.BMJ open ophthalmology · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo report outcome data on the first 5000 consecutive cataract cases at a new paperless eye unit and benchmark against the Royal College of Ophthalmologists' National Ophthalmology Database (RCOphth NOD).
methodsUsing the in-built audit tool of the electronic medical records system, data from all cataract operations performed between 1 April 2014 and 13 January 2017 were compiled.
resultsFive thousand and eight cases were recorded of which the overall intra-operative complication rate was 2.4%, the most common being posterior capsular rupture-1.14%. Follow-up data on post-operative complications were recorded in 98.6% of cases. Pre- and post-operative visual acuities was measured in 98.0% of cases. In all, 40.8% of eyes achieved a visual acuity of 6/6 or better and 90.7% achieved 6/12 or better.
conclusionsA data set of >5000 consecutive cataract operations was obtained in this eye department. The recording of pre- and post-operative visual acuity in 98% of cases compare very favourably to the RCOphth NOD Audit Report 2017 where pre- and post-operative visual acuities were recorded in only 57.1% of operations. Despite this difference, the outcome measures from this unit and RCOphth NOD were very similar, validating the results of the RCOphth NOD audit reports. Significantly, when applying the RCOphth NOD audit criteria for measuring post-operative visual acuity, approximately 15% of cases were excluded from the data set, reducing the completeness of the data set. Paperless ophthalmology units are feasible in today's NHS and can produce near complete cataract data sets; this can ultimately lead to more comprehensive and reliable aggregate cataract outcome data.
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.