ArticleEye (London, England)2022
Managing risk in the face of adversity: design and outcomes of rapid glaucoma assessment clinics during a pandemic recovery.
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.
- Post COVID glaucoma service redesign utilising electronic patient triage and community optometry clinics (Fife, Scotland 2020-2022).BMC ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Article
- Mapping vision loss of patients in a glaucoma backlog following the COVID-19 pandemic: a real-world analysis using the Glauc-Strat-Fast risk stratification tool.Eye (London, England) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe provision of timely care to the high volume of glaucoma patients stratified as "low risk" following pandemic-related appointment deferrals continues to prove challenging for glaucoma specialists. It is unknown whether stratification as "low risk" remains valid over time, raising the potential risk of harm during this period if left unmonitored. This study aimed to evaluate whether Rapid Glaucoma Assessment Clinics (RGACs) are an effective method of assessing "low-risk" patients in order to identify those who may need an escalation of care, therefore reducing the risk of the future incidents of preventable vision loss.
methodsRGACs were developed which comprised a brief advance telephone history by a clinician and then ophthalmic technician-measured visual acuity and intraocular pressure in clinic. We report outcomes from the first month of operation describing attendance patterns, the proportion of patients from this "low risk" cohort requiring escalation and underlying reasons for treatment escalations.
results639 patients were invited to attend RGACs. 75% attended their booked appointment. Pre-attendance telephone consultations were associated with lower non-attendance rates (13.9% vs 29.3%, p < 0.00001). 15% of patients were no longer deemed to remain at "low risk" with further expedited clinical review scheduled. 10.4% of patients required an escalation in treatment following review.
conclusionsRGACs are an effective approach to deliver high throughput clinical assessments for large numbers of "low-risk" glaucoma patients with deferred appointments. They enable the rapid identification and treatment of patients who would otherwise face significantly delayed review reducing the risk of future preventable vision loss.
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.