ArticleBMJ open2022
Self-medication with ophthalmic drugs and its associated factors among ophthalmic patients attending three hospitals in Asmara, Eritrea: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Global Perspectives on Therapy for Noninfectious Conjunctival Hyperemia: A Narrative Review.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2026Review
- Patterns and prevalence of ophthalmic self-medication in Bulgaria: results from a cross-sectional survey.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Global Prevalence and Clinical Consequences of Traditional Eye Medicine: A Descriptive Review.Clinical optometry · 2026Review
- Article
- Prevalence and Predictors of Self-Medication Among Ophthalmic Patients in Jordan: A Cross-Sectional Analysis.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Article
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 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the prevalence and practice of self-medication and its associated factors among ophthalmic patients.
designAn analytical cross-sectional study design was employed.
settingThree hospitals inAsmara, Eritrea.
participantsSamples of ophthalmic outpatients aged >18 years who visited the three hospitals in Asmara, Eritrea. Systematic random sampling was used to select the study participants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were collected from September 2021 to October 2021 in a face-to-face interview using a structured questionnaire. The collected data were double entered and analysed using CSPro (V.7.2) and SPSS (V.26), respectively. Descriptive statistics and logistic regression were performed. P values less than 0.05 were considered as significant. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Main outcome variable was practice of self-medication with ophthalmic drugs (SMOD). Secondary outcome measure was the determinants of self-medication practice.
resultsA total of 351 participants were recruited with a response rate of 97.7%. The prevalence of SMOD was found to be 14.9% (95% CI (11.1% to 18.7%)). The most frequently preferred ophthalmic drug groups were antibiotics (63.6%), followed by corticosteroids (22.7%). The main reasons for SMOD were easy accessibility (52.9%) and previous familiarity of the eye medication (27.5%). Eye redness (n=19/51) and foreign body sensation (n=18/51) were the most self-recognised complaints that required self-medication. The most common source of information for SMOD was pharmacy professionals (41.1%). Only attitude score (Crude odds ratio (COR)= 1.25, 95% CI 1.12, 1.39) was significantly associated with the practice of SMOD at bivariate logistic regression.
conclusionThough the majority of respondents considered self-medication with ophthalmic drugs as inappropriate, a significant number of them practising it. This mandates relevant bodies to take stricter measures to protect the public from the misuse of eye medications.
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.