ArticleEye (London, England)2023
Is an image-based eyelid management service safe and effective?
Article in Eye (London, England), 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe COVID-19 pandemic created a requirement for reduced patient contact and reduced capacity in clinics. We previously published results of an Image-Based Eyelid Lesion Management Service (IBELMS) which was found non-inferior to traditional face-to-face clinic at diagnosing lesions and identifying eyelid malignancies. We now present first-year safety and efficacy data from this service.
methodsData were collected retrospectively on all patients seen in NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde eyelid photography clinics from 30
results808 patients were included in the study. Chalazion was the most common diagnoses recorded (38.4%). There was a statistically significant decrease in mean time from referral to appointment time between the first 4 months and last 4 months of the service (93 days to 22 days, p ≤ 0.0001). 266 (33%) of patients were discharged following photographs, 45 (6%) were discharged for non-attendance and 371 (46%) were booked for a minor procedure. 13 biopsy-confirmed malignant lesions were identified; only 3 had been referred as suspected malignancy. 23 patients out of 330 with at least 6 months follow up (7%) were re-referred within 6 months of treatment or discharge; however, none of them with a missed periocular malignancy. DISCUSSION: Eyelid photography clinics effectively reduce patient waiting times and maximise clinic capacity. They accurately identify eyelid lesions including malignancies with a low re-referral rate. We propose that an image-based service for eyelid lesions is a safe and effective way of managing such 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.