ArticleBMJ open ophthalmology2019
Auditing service delivery in glaucoma clinics using visual field records: a feasibility study.
Article in BMJ open ophthalmology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Archetypes of Binocular Visual Field Loss and Their Impact on Vision-Related Quality of Life in Glaucoma Patients.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2026Article
- Forecasting trends in glaucoma medication reimbursees in Finland: updated system dynamics model to 2070.BMJ open ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Prototype master protocol for benchmarking of real-world follow-up data in glaucoma.Acta ophthalmologica · 2025Article
- Estimating the Distribution of True Rates of Visual Field Progression in Glaucoma.Translational vision science & technology · 2024Article
- Measures of multiple deprivation and visual field loss in glaucoma clinics in England: lessons from big data.Eye (London, England) · 2023Article
- Validating Trend-Based End Points for Neuroprotection Trials in Glaucoma.Translational vision science & technology · 2023Article
- Hierarchical Censored Bayesian Analysis of Visual Field Progression.Translational vision science & technology · 2021Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to demonstrate that large-scale visual field (VF) data can be extracted from electronic medical records (EMRs) and to assess the feasibility of calculating metrics from these data that could be used to audit aspects of service delivery of glaucoma care. METHOD AND ANALYSIS: Humphrey visual field analyser (HFA) data were extracted from Medisoft EMRs from five regionally different clinics in England in November 2015, resulting in 602 439 records from 73 994 people. Target patients were defined as people in glaucoma clinics with measurable and sustained VF loss in at least one eye (HFA mean deviation (MD) outside normal limits ≥2 VFs). Metrics for VF reliability, stage of VF loss at presentation, speed of MD loss, predicted loss of sight years (bilateral VF impairment) and frequency of VFs were calculated.
resultsOne-third of people (34.8%) in the EMRs had measurable and repeatable VF loss and were subject to analyses (n=25 760 patients). Median (IQR) age and presenting MD in these patients were 71 (61, 78) years and -6 (-10, -4) dB, respectively. In 19 264 patients with >4 years follow-up, median (IQR) MD loss was -0.2 (-0.8, 0.3) dB/year and median (IQR) intervals between VF examinations was 11 (8, 16) months. Metrics predicting loss of sight years and reliability of examinations varied between centres (p<0.001).
conclusionThis study illustrates the feasibility of assessing aspects of health service delivery in glaucoma clinics through analysis of VF databases. Proposed metrics could be useful for blindness prevention from glaucoma in secondary care centres.
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.