ArticleArquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia
Referral reasons for evaluating childhood glaucoma in a tertiary service.
Article in Arquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia. 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pediatric Glaucoma-From Screening, Early Detection to Management.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Care pathway for childhood glaucoma detection and monitoring in Brazil: how advances in primary and tertiary care integration could improve existing barriers.Arquivos brasileiros de oftalmologiaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo report the distribution of referral reasons for children from a pediatric glaucoma outpatient clinic in a tertiary eye care service.
methodsThe medical records of patients aged <18 years who were referred to a pediatric glaucoma center in the city of São Paulo, Brazil, between 2012 and 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. The data collected included the referral reasons, age, hospital of origin, and who detected the ocular alteration. For defining the diagnosis, the Childhood Glaucoma Research Network classification was used.
resultsFive hundred sixty-three eyes of 328 patients were included in the study. Glaucoma diagnosis was confirmed in 162 children (49%). In 83 patients (25%), the glaucoma diagnosis was ruled out, and 83 (25%) continued outpatient follow-up for suspected glaucoma. The main referral reasons were a cup-to-disc ratio >0.5 or an asymmetry ≥0.2 (24%), intraocular pressure >21 mmHg (21%), and corneal opacity (15%). In the neonatal period, the referral reasons were corneal opacity, buphthalmos, tearing, and photophobia. After the neonatal period, besides these external changes, other signs were also reasons for referral, such as cup-to-disc ratio >0.5 or asymmetry ≥0.2, intraocular pressure >21 mmHg, and myopic shift. The referrals were made by health professionals in 69% and parental concern in 30% of the cases. In 97% of the primary congenital glaucoma cases, the parents were the first to identify the change and to seek for health care.
conclusionsThe referral reasons of the children to a tertiary glaucoma clinic were differed between the age groups and diagnoses. We suggest that awareness with these findings is important to avoid and postpone diagnosis, identify their impacts on prognosis, and avoid spending important resources for the management of diseases with inaccurate referrals.
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.