ArticleEye (London, England)2023
The current use of glaucoma virtual clinics in Europe.
Article in Eye (London, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Experiences of glaucoma patients : Evaluation of the survey conducted by the Federal Association Glaucoma Self-help and the DOG Glaucoma Section].Die Ophthalmologie · 2026Article
- Health economics of virtual versus face-to-face glaucoma clinics: a time-driven activity-based costing study.BMJ open ophthalmology · 2024Article
- The value of virtual glaucoma clinics: a review.Eye (London, England) · 2024Review
- An online glaucoma educational course for patients to facilitate remote learning and patient empowerment.BMJ health & care informatics · 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
6 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess and describe current utilisation, characteristics and perspectives on virtual glaucoma clinics (VGCs) amongst European glaucoma specialists.
methodsCross-sectional, anonymized, online questionnaire distributed to all European Glaucoma Society-registered specialists. Questions were stratified into five domains: Demographics, Questions about VGC use, Questions for non-VGC users, COVID-19 effects, and VGC advantages/disadvantages.
results30% of 169 participants currently use VGCs, with 53% based in the United Kingdom. Of those using VGCs, 85% reported higher patient acceptance compared to traditional care. The commonest virtual model was asynchronous remote monitoring (54%). Nurses (49%) and ophthalmic technicians (46%) were mostly responsible for data collection, with two-thirds using a mixture of professionals. Consultant ophthalmologists were the main decision-makers in 51% of VGCs. Preferred cohorts were: ocular hypertension (85%), glaucoma suspects (80%), early/moderate glaucoma in worse eye (68%), stable glaucoma irrespective of treatment (59%) and stable glaucoma on monotherapy (51%). Commonest investigations were: IOP (90%), BCVA (88%), visual field testing (85%) and OCT (78%), with 33 different combinations. Reasons for face-to-face referral included: visual field progression (80%), 'above-target' IOP (63%), and OCT progression (51%). Reasons for not using VGCs included: lack of experience (47%), adequate systems in place (42%), no appropriate staff (34%) and insufficient time/money (34%). 55% of non-VGC users are interested in their use with 38% currently considering future implementation. 83% stated VGC consultations have increased during the COVID-19 pandemic; 86% of all participants felt that the pandemic has highlighted the importance of VGCs.
conclusionsA significant proportion of European glaucoma units are currently using VGCs, while others are considering implementation. Financial reimbursement and consensus guidelines are potentially crucial steps in VGC uptake.
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.