ArticleInternational ophthalmology2022
Tele-ophthalmology as an aid tool for primary care physicians in the IDF, during the Covid-19 lockdown.
Article in International ophthalmology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo describe tele-ophthalmology consultations for primary-physicians in the IDF during the Covid-19 lockdown.
methodsRetrospective cross-sectional study. Medical records of tele-ophthalmology consultations from March to June 2020 were reviewed.
resultsThe study included 245 cases in which an ophthalmologist was consulted. In 62.0% cell-phone camera photographs were used. The mean age was 21.5 ± 6.4 years. The most common diagnoses were acute-conjunctivitis (8.6%); conjunctival-hyperemia (non-specific diagnosis, 8.2%); scleritis/episcleritis (7.3%); chronic allergic-conjunctivitis (7.3%); chalazion (7.3%) hordeolum (6.5%); acute allergic-conjunctivitis (4.5%). 37.6% of patients received primary physician-based treatment, 24.9% of patients received specialist-based treatment. 13.1% were referred to the ER. The consult prevented ER referral for 39.2% and changed the physician's treatment plan in 70.6% of cases. Foreign-body sensation complaints were more likely treated by a primary-physician (p = 0.015). Cases with suspected foreign-body diagnosis were referred more to the ER (p < 0.001). For most cases of eyelid complaints and diagnoses, primary physician care was sufficient (p < 0.001). Conjunctival complaints and diagnoses received significantly more ophthalmologist-based treatment (p < 0.001). Corneal disorders were significantly referred more to the ER (p = 0.001).
conclusionDespite of possible ethical and legal problems and clinical limitations of this instrument, Tele-ophthalmology using objective aids such as smartphone photography can be an efficient tool in aiding the primary-physician, especially for patients with low access to ophthalmologists, with major impact on patient management.
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.