ArticleTurkish journal of ophthalmology2022
Evaluation of the Clinical Findings of Patients with Penetrating Keratoplasty Followed by Telephone Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic
Article in Turkish journal of 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, 0 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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To evaluate changes in the clinical findings of keratoplasty patients who could not be examined face-to-face and were followed up by telephone during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Materials and Methods: Patients with penetrating keratoplasty who presented to the cornea department between March 2020 and February 2021 were grouped according to whether they showed clinical deterioration (Group 1: no deterioration, Group 2: deterioration). The patients' last visit prior to the COVID-19 pandemic and their first visit after the pandemic-related lockdown ended were evaluated. The demographic data, follow-up period, and ophthalmological examination findings of all patients were recorded and the data were compared between the groups. Results: Thirty-five eyes of 35 patients were included in the study. Signs of deterioration were detected in 8 (22.8%) of the patients (Group 1), while no deterioration was detected in 27 (77.2%) of the patients (Group 2). In the last follow-up visit prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, mean best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was 1.26±0.43 LogMAR (range: 0.52-1.80) in Group 1 and 1.41±1.02 LogMAR (range: 0-3.1) in Group 2 (p=0.692). Mean BCVA in the first control during the pandemic was 2.07±0.86 LogMAR (range: 1.3-3.1) in Group 1 and 1.49±1.08 LogMAR (range: 0-3.1) in Group 2 (p=0.08). At the first visit during the COVID-19 pandemic, the mean intraocular pressure of Group 1 was 16.38±8.58 mmHg (range: 0-31), and Group 2 was 17.11±3.7 mmHg (range: 11-26) (p=0.984). Conclusion: The continuation of treatment initiated prior to the pandemic was probably the most important reason why deterioration was not observed in keratoplasty patients. In situations such as pandemics where face-to-face visits with patients may be disrupted, it may be possible to follow the patients safely with telemedicine visits until the difficult circumstances resolve.
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.