Trial reportIndian journal of ophthalmology2022
Do motivational cards really benefit sibling screening of primary open-angle glaucoma probands?
Trial report 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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Family Screening in Glaucoma: A Scoping Review.Ophthalmology. GlaucomaArticle
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 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare the impact of Sibling Motivational Card (SMC) and oral counseling in screening siblings of primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) probands. Methods: Two hundred and thirty-four newly diagnosed POAG probands were randomized to receive either oral counseling or SMC to motivate their siblings for a glaucoma screening at a tertiary eye care hospital in South India from July 2015 and June 2017. A total of 116 probands were orally counseled with a standard template of dialogs about the importance of family screening to motivate their siblings for a screening. One hundred and eighteen probands were randomized to receive SMC, bearing the details of the proband, sibling, and a message stressing the importance of family screening, in addition to oral counseling. We assessed the response rate in each group. Additionally, we evaluated the prevalence of POAG in the siblings. Results: A total of 95 siblings of 234 POAG probands were screened. The mean age distribution was 53.33 ± 10.9 years (range 28-79 years). The male to female ratio was 3:4. The percentage of siblings screened was more in the oral counseling group (63.2%) than in the SMC group (36.8). About 43 (45%) siblings had some form of glaucoma, and 13.6% had POAG. An additional 22.1% were disk suspects, and 5.2% had ocular hypertension. Conclusion: SMC did not have an additional benefit over the standard oral counseling in promoting sibling screening. Our study stresses the importance of sibling screening in POAG probands. Targeting siblings of POAG probands with oral counseling may offer a relatively inexpensive way of detecting glaucoma.
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.