ArticleEye (London, England)2021
Ten-year review of a shared care approach in the management of ocular chlamydia trachomatis infections.
Article in Eye (London, England), 2021. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic delays and sexual health integration inBMJ open ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Five-year review of ocular Neisseria gonorrhoeae infections presenting to ophthalmology departments in Greater Glasgow & Clyde, Scotland.Eye (London, England) · 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSince 2007, the ocular 4:1 multiplex PCR assay in NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde includes Chlamydia trachomatis (ocular chlamydia (OC)) testing. OC can be identified following routine 'viral' ophthalmic testing, including in asymptomatic patients. A published audit from 2008 identified only 25% of our OC patients attended and completed sexual health management, particularly when ophthalmologists initiated treatment. We subsequently created a shared care network between ophthalmology, virology and sexual health (including a designated sexual health advisor) to address these clinical issues.
methodsA 10-year retrospective service review audit from January 2010 to December 2019 was performed to evaluate this approach.
resultsA total of 86 patients were identified (49 males (57%), median age 23 years (range 16-77)). Ophthalmologists initiated treatment for 37 patients (43%) prior to onward sexual health referral. Of this group, 5 (13.5%) received sub-optimal treatments, and 15 (40.5%) subsequently failed to attend sexual health services for partner notification. Of the 49 (57%) patients who attended sexual health, 25 (51%) had genital chlamydia co-infection, and 98% received adequate systemic treatment. All were offered full sexual health screening and 46 (93.9%) completed partner notification.
conclusionsThis shared care approach more than doubled the proportion of OC patients attending sexual health services over this 10-year period (previously 25%, now 57%). Ophthalmologists could defer treatment to sexual health for more effective OC management; however, challenges remain to address real-world issues of non-attendance, inadequate treatment and incomplete contact tracing. We recommend a multi-disciplinary approach to best manage OC cases identified following ophthalmic testing.
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.