Trial reportPloS one2021
Physician and patient concordance in reporting of appropriateness and prioritization for cataract surgery.
Trial report in PloS one, 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.
- Systematic literature review on biopsychosocial factors in the surgical waiting list.Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2026Review
- Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsDetermine the association between physician-deemed and patient-reported appropriateness and prioritization for cataract surgery.
methodsProspective cohort study of 471 patients of 7 ophthalmologists referred for cataract surgery. Ophthalmologists rated patients for cataract surgery appropriateness and prioritization using a visual analogue scale of 0-10 preoperatively. All patients completed the eCAPS Quality of Life (QoL), while 313 completed the Catquest-9SF and EQ-5D questionnaires. Regression analyses were applied to determine demographic, clinical and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) associated with appropriateness and prioritization.
resultsTwo clinical factors (study eye and fellow eye best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA)), 2 eCAPS (night driving difficulty, ability to take care of local errands), and 2 Catquest-9SF PROMs (recognizing faces, seeing to walk on uneven ground) were associated with appropriateness. In multivariable regression, the rating physician, 2 clinical criteria (study eye BCVA, anticipated postoperative BCVA) and 1 eCAPS QoL (night driving difficulty) were associated with appropriateness. Prioritization was associated with low income, 8 clinical criteria, 9 eCAPS, 5 Catquest-9SF, and 1 EQ-5D PROMs. In multivariable regression, 1 clinical criterion (study eye BCVA), 2 eCAPS QoL (night driving difficulty, ability to take care of local errands), and 2 Catquest-9SF PROMs (seeing prices, seeing to walk on uneven ground) were significantly associated.
conclusionsThe eCAPS and Catquest-9SF questionnaires show some concordance with physician-deemed appropriateness, and more with prioritization. Binary conversions of PROM scales provide similar modelling, with minimal loss of explanatory power. As physician-deemed appropriateness and prioritization do not completely capture the patient perspective, PROMs may have a role in cataract surgery decision-making frameworks.
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.