ArticleThe British and Irish orthoptic journal2022
Evaluation of the Nystagmus Information Pack.
Article in The British and Irish orthoptic journal, 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.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: In response to the need for easily accessible, high-quality information about nystagmus, the Nystagmus Information Pack was created and made freely available online in 2017. This study was undertaken to evaluate the content and accessibility of the Nystagmus Information Pack. Methods: Clinicians, eye clinic liaison officers (ECLOs), teachers, patients, families, and any person with an interest in nystagmus were invited to complete an online questionnaire about the content and accessibility of the Nystagmus Information Pack. Results: One hundred and sixty respondents completed the questionnaire. Respondents who had previously accessed the Nystagmus Information Pack (n = 49, 30.6%) reported the content was appropriate (86%), of sufficient detail (94%), and easy to understand (88%). Minor suggestions were made to improve the content. Respondents who had not accessed the Nystagmus Information Pack (n = 111, 69.4%) reported not being aware of the resource (90%) but had already accessed nystagmus information from a wide range of sources. Poor vision was a barrier to accessing the resource for a small number of respondents (4.5%). Conclusion: Some improvements to the content and accessibility of the Nystagmus Information Pack should be considered, in particular the format options in which it is available, to enable access in preferred formats and with poor vision. The availability of the Nystagmus Information Pack should be promoted and shared more widely, as the majority of respondents were unaware of the resource despite having an association with or interest in nystagmus.
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.