ArticlePloS one2019
Optimization of cataract surgery follow-up: A standard set of questions can predict unexpected management changes at postoperative week one.
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 8 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
8 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
- Risk-Stratified Postoperative Follow-Up After Uncomplicated Cataract Surgery: Real-World Outcomes and Implications for Remote Care.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
- Optimizing the Postcataract Patient Journey Using AI-Driven Teleconsultation: Prospective Case Study.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Accuracy and safety of an autonomous artificial intelligence clinical assistant conducting telemedicine follow-up assessment for cataract surgery.EClinicalMedicine · 2024Article
- Quality assurance via telephone interviews after cataract surgery: An explorative study.PloS one · 2024Article
- User-acceptability of an automated telephone call for post-operative follow-up after uncomplicated cataract surgery.Eye (London, England) · 2023Article
- Incidence of postoperative week 1 management changes after resident-performed phacoemulsification cataract surgery.BMC ophthalmology · 2022Article
- Can a Set of Questions after Routine Cataract Surgery Predict Unexpected Findings and Avoid an Unnecessary Follow-Up Visit?Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThere is limited evidence to inform the optimal follow-up schedule after cataract surgery. This study aims to determine whether a standardized question set can predict unexpected management changes (UMCs) at the postoperative week one (POW1) timepoint.
settingMassachusetts Eye and Ear, Harvard Medical School.
designProspective cohort study.
methodsTwo-hundred-and-fifty-four consecutive phacoemulsification cases having attended an examination between postoperative days 5-14. A set of 7 'Yes' or 'No' questions were administered to all participants by a technician at the POW1 visit. Patient answers along with perioperative patient information were recorded and analyzed. Outcomes were the incidence of UMCs at POW1.
resultsThe incidence of UMCs was zero in uneventful cataract cases with unremarkable history and normal postoperative day one exam if no positive answers were given with the question set demonstrating 100% sensitivity (p<0.0001). A test version with 5 questions was equally sensitive in detecting UMCs at POW1 after cataract surgery.
conclusionIn routine cataract cases with no positive answers to the current set of clinical questions, a POW1 visit is unlikely to result in a management change. This result offers the opportunity for eye care providers to risk-stratify patients who have had cataract surgery and individualize follow-up.
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.