ArticleOphthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists)2022
An analysis of glaucoma repeat measures assessment results: Are core competencies enough?
Article in Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- National UK optometry clinical practice survey: implications for developing glaucoma services in primary care.Eye (London, England) · 2026Article
- An analysis of glaucoma repeat measures assessment results: Are core competencies enough?Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2022Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe need to validate core competency skills in qualified optometrists wishing to take part in extended roles in glaucoma care has been questioned. This analysis examines the ability of qualified optometrists to perform relevant core competency skills under standardised objective assessment conditions to explore whether such validation is justified. It also investigates if there are associations between performance, gender and length of time since qualification.
methodsAnonymised data from the Cardiff University assessment programme for the Wales Optometry Postgraduate Education Centre (WOPEC) Local Optical Committee Support Unit glaucoma referral filtering and monitoring pathway delivered between January 2017 and March 2020 were analysed. Results were combined with demographic data from the General Optical Council register of optometrists in the UK to investigate associations between performance and practitioner characteristics, namely length of time since qualification and gender.
resultsThe assessment results of 2215 optometrists practising in England (approximately 15% of all UK registered optometrists and 30% of all optometrists registered in England) were analysed. Failure rates for first time assessment in each of five objective structured clinical examination style practical assessments were 8.5% (van Herick); 8.8% (slit lamp binocular indirect ophthalmoscopy); 10.1% (Goldmann applanation tonometry calibration); 21.9% (Goldmann applanation tonometry) and 23.3% (case scenario interpretation and management). There were either no associations or at most very weak associations between performance and practitioner characteristics.
conclusionsOur results suggest that these competencies are not universally present in optometrists practising in England and that ongoing training and assessment of these competencies is justified for entry into extended roles. There are no meaningful associations between performance in these assessments and gender or time since qualification.
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.