Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34409229›Full record

ArticleJournal of current ophthalmology

Glaucoma Care of Incarcerated Patients at an Academic Institution: A Case-Control Study.

Levi N Kanu, Daniel J Oh, Inae Jang, Michael Henry, Amy A Mehta, Mark S Dikopf, Thasarat S Vajaranant, Ahmad A Aref, Deepak P Edward

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of current ophthalmology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Retinal Detachment in Incarcerated Patients.Journal of vitreoretinal diseases
    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 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Levi N KanuDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Illinois Eye and Ear Infirmary, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
Daniel J OhDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Illinois Eye and Ear Infirmary, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
Inae JangDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Illinois Eye and Ear Infirmary, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
Michael HenryDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Illinois Eye and Ear Infirmary, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
Amy A MehtaDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Illinois Eye and Ear Infirmary, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
Mark S DikopfDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Illinois Eye and Ear Infirmary, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
Thasarat S VajaranantDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Illinois Eye and Ear Infirmary, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
Ahmad A ArefDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Illinois Eye and Ear Infirmary, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
Deepak P EdwardDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Illinois Eye and Ear Infirmary, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
University of Illinois Chicago · USColumbia University · USKing Khaled Eye Specialist Hospital · SA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo evaluate medication and follow-up adherence in incarcerated patients examined at an academic glaucoma clinic, in comparison to nonincarcerated controls.

methodsRetrospective, case-control study. Consecutive prisoners presenting for initial visits in the Glaucoma Clinic at the Illinois Eye and Ear Infirmary between December 2015 and December 2017 were included in the study. Nonincarcerated patients seen in the same Glaucoma Clinic with similar initial visit dates, age, race, sex, and disease severity were selected as controls. Glaucoma Clinic visits from each patient were reviewed until December 2018. Examination information, surgical intervention, follow-up and treatment recommendations, and patient-reported medication usage were recorded for each visit. Number of visits, loss to follow-up, follow-up delays, and medication nonadherence were studied as primary outcome measures.

resultsTwenty-four prisoners and 24 nonincarcerated controls were included. Prisoners had an average of 2.46 ± 2.38 visits during the study period, compared to 5.04 ± 3.25 for controls (

conclusionsGlaucoma follow-up adherence was significantly worse in prisoners compared to a nonincarcerated control population. Further study into causative factors is needed.

Indexed as

AdherenceCase-control studyComplianceFollow-upGlaucomaImprisonedJailPrisoners

Identifiers

PMID34409229
PMCPMC8365574
OpenAlexW3185166358

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.