ArticleEye (London, England)2022
Evaluating multidisciplinary glaucoma care: visual field progression and loss of sight year analysis in the community vs hospital setting.
Article in Eye (London, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Improving Access and Reducing the Burden on Public Ophthalmology: Collaborative Telehealth Models Between Ophthalmology and Optometry in Australia.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026Article
- Prediction of repeatable glaucomatous visual field defects based on cluster characteristics.The British journal of ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Survey on electronic visual field data transfer practices among Japan Glaucoma Society board members.BMC ophthalmology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA variety of shared care models have been developed, which aim to stratify glaucoma patients according to risk of disease progression. However, there is limited published data on the rate of glaucoma progression in the hospital vs community setting. Here we aimed to compare rates of glaucomatous visual field progression in the Cambridge Community Optometrist Glaucoma Scheme (COGS) and Addenbrooke's Hospital Glaucoma Clinic (AGC).
methodsA retrospective comparative cohort review was performed. Patients with five or more visual field tests were included. Zeiss Forum software was used to calculate the MD progression rate (dB/year). Loss of sight years (LSY) were also calculated for both COGS and AGC.
resultsOverall, 8465 visual field tests from 854 patients were reviewed. In all, 362 eyes from the AGC group and 210 eyes from COGS were included. The MD deterioration rate was significantly lower in the COGS patients compared with the AGC group (-0.1 vs -0.3 dB/year; p < 0.0001). No patients in the COGS group were predicted to become blind within their lifetime by LSY analysis. Fifteen patients were at risk in the AGC group.
conclusionThis service evaluation shows that COGS is an effective scheme to stratify lower risk glaucoma patients, increasing the capacity within hospital eye services. COGS patients have a lower rate of visual field deterioration compared to AGC patients. Effective communication between community and tertiary schemes is essential to facilitate transfer of patients requiring further hospital management reliably and efficiently, with the potential for low-risk patients to be followed safely in the community.
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.