ArticleIndian journal of ophthalmology2023
Online survey about keratoconus management by optometrists.
Article in Indian journal of ophthalmology, 2023. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Preferred practice patterns in the management of keratoconus: a national survey of cornea specialists in Saudi Arabia.BMC ophthalmology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The aim of the study was to survey keratoconus management by optometrists in India. Methods: A validated online survey questionnaire was circulated to all optometrists from India who had completed 4 years of optometry programs. Practitioners were asked general contact lens practice questions and keratoconus management-related questions. For analysis, data were imported into SPSS (IBM Corp. 2011). Results: A total of 159 optometrists responded to the questionnaire, of whom 10.7% of practitioners had >10 years of experience and the remaining 89.3% had <10 years. Only 45.3% of respondents had corneal topography in their practice. Approximately 55% of practitioners prescribed gas permeable (GP) lenses. Around 77.4% of practitioners considered that a combination of multiple factors is necessary for keratoconus investigations. In addition, 91.8% of practitioners used the keratoconus severity classification. Also, 73% of practitioners consider that GP contact lens (CL) fitting is more difficult in keratoconic eyes than in healthy eyes. The average number of GP diagnostic lenses used in keratoconus CL fittings was 3.93 ± 1.92. A majority of practitioners calculate back optic zone radius (BOZR) using the manufacturer's guidelines (based on manual keratometry [39.6%] or based on corneal topography [40.3%]). Around 40.3% of respondents prefer to refer patients to another optometrist for CL fitting before consulting an ophthalmologist for surgical intervention. Finally, half of the respondents participate in co-management with ophthalmologists after surgical treatment (54.1%). Conclusion: This study provides details about the management of keratoconus by optometrists in India. Keratoconus patient care could be improved with new evidence-based guidelines for the management and referral of these patients that would provide guidance on GP CL fitting procedures. Furthermore, it determines referral criteria and enhances co-management between optometrists and ophthalmologists.
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.