ReviewIrish journal of medical science2023
Presentations to eye emergency departments with flashes and floaters differ dependent on incident solar radiation.
Review in Irish journal of medical science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. 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, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Retraction · 2025-03-24Bias Issues or Lack of Balance · Error in Methods ·
- Retracted
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThe aim of this retrospective review was to analyse the frequency of patients presenting with flashes and/or floaters (F/F) on bright versus dark days to the eye emergency department of a tertiary referral hospital (the Mater Misericordiae University Hospital) over a 3-year period. The diagnostic and clinical outcomes of F/F presentations were also analysed.
methodsThis retrospective study assessed eye casualty attendances between January 2018 and December 2020. Solar irradiation (j/cm
resultsSeven hundred forty patient presentations were analysed in total. Overall, 16% (n = 119) of all patients that attended EED during the timeframe of the study presented with F/F. One hundred six patients (89%) presented with floaters, 40 patients (34%) presented with flashing lights/photopsia, and 35 patients (29%) presented with both F/F. More patients presented to EED with F/F on bright days when compared with dark days (74 vs 45, p < 0.05). Eighty-nine percent of all patients with F/F presented with monocular floaters. There were more floater presentations during bright when compared with dark days (70 vs 36, p < 0.05). More patients were diagnosed with PVD on bright days when compared with those diagnosed with PVD on dark days (43vs 15, p < 0.05). More RDs were diagnosed on dark days compared with bright days (7 vs 3, p < 0.05).
conclusionThis study established that F/F presentations were more likely to present during bright days when compared with dark days. The diagnosis of PVD was more common during bright days, and RDs were diagnosed significantly more frequently on dark days. Although incident solar radiation was correlated with greater floaters/PVD presentation, causation is unlikely, and the duration of PVD may have been longer in patients presenting on bright days (i.e. pseudo-sudden symptoms).
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.