Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33293788›Full record

ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2020

The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Ophthalmic Care at an Eye-Specific Emergency Department in an Outbreak Hotspot.

Jade Y Moon, John B Miller, Raviv Katz, Thong Ta, Colleen Szypko, Itika Garg, Alice C Lorch, Matthew F Gardiner, Grayson W Armstrong

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. The barriers to global eye care equity and the role of digital innovations.Advances in ophthalmology practice and research · 2021
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jade Y Moon *Department of Ophthalmology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
John B Miller *Department of Ophthalmology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0109-9738
Raviv KatzHarvard Retinal Imaging Lab, Massachusetts Eye and Ear, Boston, MA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5305-8551
Thong TaDepartment of Ophthalmology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Colleen SzypkoDepartment of Ophthalmology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Itika GargDepartment of Ophthalmology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9537-8561
Alice C LorchDepartment of Ophthalmology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Matthew F GardinerDepartment of Ophthalmology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Grayson W ArmstrongDepartment of Ophthalmology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9102-5868
Harvard University · USMassachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, there is growing concern that patients are forgoing necessary care. Emergency departments (ED) represent an important site of eye care. We analyzed patterns of ED visits at an eye-specific ED since the declaration of the public health crisis. MATERIALS AND

methodsIn this retrospective, cross-sectional single center study, medical records of 6744 patients who presented to the Massachusetts Eye and Ear ED between March 1st and April 30th in 2018, 2019, and 2020 were studied. The primary outcome measures were total volume of ED visits, proportion of urgent ED visits, and proportion of surgical visits.

resultsOverall, the median number of daily visits to the ED decreased by 18 visits per day since the declaration of public health guidelines (interquartile range, 9-24, p < 0.001). This accounted for a 32% decrease in the total volume of ED visits in 2020 compared to prior years during the study period (p < 0.001). There was a 9% increase in the proportion of primary diagnoses considered urgent (p = 0.002). The proportion of visits requiring urgent surgery increased by 39% (p = 0.004).

conclusionThe total number of eye-specific ED visits dropped compared to prior years while the proportion of urgent visits increased. Patients were likely more reluctant to seek eye care, deferring less urgent evaluation.

Indexed as

COVID-19epidemiologyeye-specific emergency departmentmedical servicesurgent ophthalmic diagnoses

Identifiers

PMID33293788
PMCPMC7718995
OpenAlexW3107139415

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.