Trial reportIndian journal of ophthalmology2022
Comparison of patient satisfaction with red-free (green) versus yellow light using binocular indirect ophthalmoscope for retinal examination.
Trial report in Indian journal of ophthalmology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Green Light Therapy for Pain and Pain-Related Psychosocial Outcomes: A Systematic Review of Human Studies.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Visualization of the Persistent Avascular Retina with Ultra-Widefield Green Reflectance Imaging.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Commentary: Expanding the horizons of red-free examination.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Comparison of patient satisfaction with red-free (green) versus yellow light using binocular indirect ophthalmoscope for retinal examination. Methods: This is an observational questionnaire-based study of 100 myopes in the age group of 18-40 years coming for a routine check-up or for refractive surgery workup. The examination was done using an indirect ophthalmoscope and a 20D lens with green or yellow light and was assigned in two groups randomly using the coin toss method, following which, a questionnaire was used to assess the following parameters: a) level of comfort, b) any complaints of discomfort during examination, d) preference of the used light source in future, e) grading of discomfort on a linear scale, and f) patient cooperation and duration of examination. Results: Patients were randomized for observation with IDO using either green light (n = 55) or yellow light (n = 45) filter. In the study, 46 patients (83.6%) were very comfortable and only 9 patients (16.4%) experienced mild discomfort when using red-free (green) light, while only 3 patients (6.7%) were very comfortable and 31 (68.9%) had mild discomfort when using yellow light. The complaints of watering with yellow and green light were noted in 36 patients (80.0%) and 15 patients (27.3%), pain in 13 patients (28.9%) and 3 patients (5.5%), light sensitivity in 29 patients (64.4%) and 4 patients (7.3%), respectively, all being significantly more in yellow light category (P < 0.001). The time of examination was significantly more in yellow light category with 83 ± 10.75 seconds (P < 0.001). Conclusion: Retinal examination using the green filter of indirect ophthalmoscope is more comfortable in examining the patients as compared to routine yellow light with decreased number of complaints, lesser examination time, and better patient cooperation.
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.