ArticleOphthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists)2021
Lockdown low vision assessment: an audit of 500 telephone-based modified low vision consultations.
Article in Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Auditing the Audits: A Systematic Review on Different Procedures in Telemedicine.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Pooled it
- Topical Review: Clinical, Physiological, and Functional Benefits of Home-based Telerehabilitation with Occupational Therapists for Low Vision.International journal of telerehabilitation · 2025Review
- The impact of COVID-19 on soft contact lens wear in established European and US markets.Contact lens & anterior eye : the journal of the British Contact Lens Association · 2022Article
- Lockdown low vision assessment: an audit of 500 telephone-based modified low vision consultations.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2021Article
- Assessing optometric care delivered by telehealth during the COVID-19 public health emergency.Therapeutic advances in ophthalmologyArticle
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
purposeNon-urgent face-to-face outpatient ophthalmology appointments were suspended in the United Kingdom in March 2020, due to the COVID-19 outbreak. In common with other centres, Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (London) offered modified telephone consultations to new and follow-up patients in the low vision clinic. Here we assess the success of this telephone service.
methodsData were collected for 500 consecutive telephone low vision appointments. Successful completion of the assessment and clinical outcomes (low vision aids prescribed, onward referral) were recorded.
resultsTelephone assessments were completed for 364 people (72.8%). The most common reasons for non-completion were either no answer to the telephone call (75 people, 15%), or the patient declining assessment (20 people, 4%). There was no association between age and the likelihood of an assessment being completed. 131 new low vision aids were dispensed, 77 internal referrals were made and 15 people were referred to outside services. More than 80% of the low vision aids prescribed were useful.
conclusionsTelephone low vision assessments were completed in about three-quarters of cases. About one-quarter of consultations resulted in new low vision aids being dispensed, which were generally found useful. Telephone low vision assessments can be used successfully in a large low vision clinic, but have many limitations when compared to face-to-face assessments.
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.