Observational studyIndian journal of ophthalmology2022
Cross-sectional observational analysis of the genetic referral practices across pediatric ophthalmology outpatient departments in an urban setting.
Observational study 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 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Commentary: An eye on the genes.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To analyze the genetic referral practices of pediatric ophthalmologists in an urban setting. Methods: (1) The first limb of the study: cross-sectional, observational study among children visiting the outpatient department of pediatric ophthalmology across five centers in Mumbai. All pediatric patients were screened separately by pediatric ophthalmologists and a clinical geneticist for their ophthalmic and systemic complaints. Children were marked for referral to genetics (RTG) by both the specialists based on identification of distinctive features (red flag) and were requested to meet a local geneticist. (2a) Twenty-three months later, patients who had been marked for RTG were contacted telephonically to follow-up if they had met the geneticist. (2b) Additionally, the last 20 proformas from each center were checked retrospectively to note the RTG marked by the ophthalmologist alone. Results: (1) In the first aspect of the study, 126 patients (male: female = 1.2:1) were included. Forty-nine (38.3%) patients were referred for genetic evaluation, of which three (6.1%), 31 (63.26%), and 15 (30.6%) cases were referred by the ophthalmologist alone, geneticist alone, and by both the specialists, respectively. Glaucoma (100%), nystagmus (86%), and leukocoria (83%) were the most prominent ocular diagnoses in cases referred for genetic evaluation. Facial dysmorphism (55.1%) and neurodevelopmental delays (51%) were among the most common systemic red flags found in patients referred to genetics. (2a) Twenty-three months later, on contacting the 49 patients marked for RTG, only one family had met the geneticist. (2b) Retrospective evaluation of 100 proformas: only three patients were marked for RTG by ophthalmologist alone. Conclusion: This study found that the genetic referrals by pediatric ophthalmologist were far lesser than those by geneticist. The study highlights an area of knowledge gap among pediatric ophthalmologists, prompting a need for heightened awareness in this area.
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.