ReviewOphthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists)2023
Assessment of optometrists' referral accuracy and contributing factors: A review.
Review in Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Tele-ophthalmology-enabled and artificial intelligence-ready referral pathway for community optometry referrals of retinal disease: HERMES cluster randomised trial with a diagnostic accuracy study.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2025Trial
- Who Gets Referred for What? Large Scale Analysis of Clinical, Socioeconomic and Demographic Drivers Within Electronic Optometry Referrals.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026Article
- Optimising the patient pathway for macular conditions requiring intravitreal injections.BMJ open ophthalmology · 2026Review
- Article
- Real-World Evaluation of the Eye+Dot Online Triage Support Tool in Community Optometry Practices: Mixed Methods Evaluation Study.JMIR human factors · 2026Article
- Analysing Patterns in Electronic Optometry Referrals: Feasibility and Methodology.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026Article
- Evaluation of a tele-refraction model to address the lack of human resources in Kenya.PloS one · 2026Article
- An integrated language-vision foundation model for conversational diagnostics and triaging in primary eye care.Cell reports. Medicine · 2025Article
- A review of UK primary care pathways for acute ophthalmic conditions.Eye (London, England) · 2025Review
- Optometrists' Assessment of Pseudoexfoliation and Its Impact on Glaucoma Referrals.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Article
- Perceptions and Experiences of Key Informants in Eye Health on the Implementation of Eye Care Health Promotion Interventions in South Africa.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- The effectiveness of interventions for optometric referrals into the hospital eye service: A review.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2023Review
- 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeIn the UK, ophthalmology has the highest number of outpatient appointments within the National Health Service. False-positive referrals from primary care are one of the main factors contributing to the oversubscription of hospital eye services (HESs). We reviewed the accuracy of referrals originating from primary care optometrists and contributing factors, such as condition type and years since registration. RECENT
findingsOf the 31 studies included in the review, 22 were retrospective analyses of referrals and appointments at the HES. Eight were prospective studies, and one used online clinical vignettes. Seven assessed the accuracy of referrals for all ocular conditions. The remaining studies focused on glaucoma (n = 11), cataracts (n = 7), emergency conditions (n = 4), neovascular age-related macular degeneration (n = 1) and paediatric binocular vision (n = 1). The diagnostic agreement for suspected emergency ocular conditions was the lowest, with only 21.1% of referrals considered to require urgent attention in one study. For glaucoma, the first-visit discharge rate was high (16.7%-48%). Optometrist referral accuracy was overall 18.6% higher than General Medical Practitioners'; however, the two mainly referred different ocular conditions. Female optometrists made more false-positive referrals than males (p = 0.008). The proportion of false positives decreased by 6.2% per year since registration (p < 0.001). SUMMARY: There was significant variation in referral accuracy across different ocular conditions, partly due to differences when defining accurate referrals. Optometrists working in primary care are generally more limited in their resources than the HES. Thus, choosing the cautious option of referral when they are unsure could be in the patients' best interests. The possible effect of increased use of advanced imaging on referrals requires evaluation. Although interventions such as refinement schemes have been put in place, these vary across regions, and their approaches such as virtual referral triaging may reduce unnecessary HES face-to-face appointments and promote communication between primary and secondary care.
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.