ArticleBMJ open ophthalmology2021
Effects of COVID-19 protective measures on the ophthalmological patient examination with an emphasis on gender-specific differences.
Article in BMJ open ophthalmology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Adapting Ophthalmology Practices in Puerto Rico During COVID-19: A Cross-Sectional Survey Study.Epidemiologia (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveIn response to the COVID-19 pandemic, strict hygiene and containment measures have been instituted in the clinical ophthalmological examination to prevent virus transmission. The aim of this study is to assess the effects of these protective measures on the quality of the examination with an emphasis on gender-specific differences. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: An online survey was sent to ophthalmologists in 10 countries. The collected data included demographics, place of work, current professional status, COVID-19 protective measures and their impact on the quality of the examination. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse the data. Fisher's exact test was used to analyse gender differences.
resultsA total of 120 responses were collected. 54.0% of the respondents identified as female and 43.4% as male. Over 75% agreed that protective measures made the examination conditions more difficult. The major problems were fogging of the lenses (87.6%) or slit lamp oculars (69.9%), reduced operability of the slit lamp due to protective barriers (60.2%) and time delay due to disinfection measures (68.1%). Significantly more women than men reported that they used filtering face piece (FFP2) instead of surgical masks (p=0.02). More male participants reported that they removed their mask to prevent fogging (p=0.01). 31% of all participants felt that the COVID-19 protective measures reduced the overall quality of slit lamp examination and 43.4% reported a reduced quality of fundoscopic examination.
conclusionCOVID-19 related safety measures reduce the feasibility of the clinical ophthalmological examination. Practicable solutions are required to maintain good examination quality without compromising personal safety.
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.