ArticleBMC ophthalmology2022
The burden of flashes and floaters in traditional general emergency services and utilization of ophthalmology on-call consultation: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical characteristics and treatment willingness of outpatients with vitreous floaters: a real-world study in China.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2026Article
- Presentations to eye emergency departments with flashes and floaters differ dependent on incident solar radiation.Irish journal of medical science · 2023Review
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo characterize the healthcare utilization and clinical characteristics of patients presenting with flashes and/or floaters (F/F) in general emergency service (GES) settings.
methodsAll adults presenting to GESs (emergency departments (EDs) and urgent care centers (UCCs)) with symptoms of F/F in Hamilton, Ontario between Jan. 1 - Dec. 31, 2018 were reviewed. Primary outcome was the proportion of patients presenting to GESs with F/F for which ophthalmology emergency services (OESs) were consulted. Secondary outcomes included features predictive of OES consultation by logistic regression and cost of GES utilization.
resultsOf 6590 primary eye-related visits to GESs, 10.4% (687) involved symptoms of F/F. Mean age of patients with F/F was 57 ± 15 years, and 61% were female. Consultation rate to OESs for F/F presentations was 89% (608/687). Logistic regression identified symptoms ≤ 2 weeks (OR 8.0; 95% CI 2.3-28), ≥ 45 years age (OR 2.4; 95% CI 1.4-4.3), UCC setting (OR 2.7; 95% CI 1.6-4.6), headache (OR 0.22; 95% CI 0.12-0.41), and neurologic symptoms (OR 0.1; 95% CI 0.19-0.49) as variables predictive of OES consultation. Mean time from triage to discharge in GESs for F/F patients was 2.43 ± 2.36 h. Mean cost per visit was $139.11 ± $113.93 Canadian dollars. Patients for which OES were consulted waited a total of 1345 h in GESs and accounted for $81,879.70 in costs.
conclusionPatients presenting with F/F in GESs consume considerable resources in healthcare expenditure and time spent in GESs and most receive OES consultation. Identifying these patients at triage may allow for increased efficiency for the healthcare system and patients.
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.