ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2021
Shared Care and Virtual Clinics for Glaucoma in a Hospital Setting.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Primary Eyecare Glaucoma Service (PEGS): a mixed methods service evaluation.Eye (London, England) · 2024Article
- Comparative outcomes of selective laser trabeculoplasty delivered by optometrists compared with ophthalmologists: a UK-based multicentre observational study.BMJ open ophthalmology · 2024Observational
- Article
- Going for Gaps in Glaucoma.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- A Quality Assurance Audit of an Orthoptic-Led Virtual Neuro-Ophthalmology Clinic.The British and Irish orthoptic journal · 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Glaucoma patients require lifelong management, and the prevalence of glaucoma is expected to increase, resulting in capacity problems in many hospital eye departments. New models of care delivery are needed to offer requisite capacity. This review evaluates two alternative schemes for glaucoma care within a hospital, i.e., shared care (SC) and virtual clinics (VCs), whereby non-medical staff are entrusted with more responsibilities, and compares these schemes with the "traditional" ophthalmologist-led outpatient service (standard care). A literature search was conducted in three large bibliographic databases (PubMed, Embase, and Trip), and the abstracts from the prior five annual meetings of the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology were consulted. Twenty-nine were included in the review (14 on SC and 15 on VCs). Patients with low risk of vision loss were considered suitable for these approaches. Among the non-medical staff, optometrists were the most frequently involved. The quality of both schemes was good and improved with the non-medical staff being trained in glaucoma care. No evidence was found on patients feeling disadvantaged by the lack of a doctor visit. Both schemes increased the hospital's efficiency. Both SC and VCs are promising approaches to tackle the upcoming capacity problems of hospital-based glaucoma care.
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.