ArticleBMJ open2023
Technologies for the diagnosis of angle closure glaucoma (ACE): protocol of a prospective, multicentre, cross-sectional diagnostic study.
Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Progress in the Synthesis of Evidence in Glaucoma: What We Know and the Gaps that Remain.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026Review
- Glaucoma spectrum findings among the Yanomami Indigenous people of the Brazilian Amazon.International ophthalmology · 2026Observational
- Comparison of anterior segment optical coherence tomography versus technician led gonioscopy as a triage tool for anterior chamber angle status.Eye (London, England) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionAngle-closure is responsible for half of all glaucoma blindness globally. Patients with suspected glaucoma require assessment of the drainage angle by an experienced clinician. The goal of this study is to evaluate the diagnostic performance and cost-effectiveness of two non-contact tests, anterior segment OCT (Optical Coherence Tomography) (AS-OCT) and limbal anterior chamber depth for patients referred to hospital with suspected angle closure compared with gonioscopy by ophthalmologist. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Study design: prospective, multicentre, cross-sectional diagnostic accuracy study. INCLUSION CRITERIA: adults referred from community optometry to hospital with suspected angle closure. PRIMARY OUTCOME: Sensitivity and specificity. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: Positive/negative likelihood ratios, concordance, cost-effectiveness, proportion of patients requiring subsequent clinical assessment by ophthalmologist. SAMPLE SIZE: 600 individuals who have been referred with suspected angle closure from primary care (community optometry). We will have a 95% probability of detecting the true sensitivity of either test to within ±3.5% based on a sensitivity of 90%. The study would also have a 95% probability of detecting the true specificity of either test to within ±5%, assuming a specificity of 75%. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical Review Board approval was obtained. REC reference: 22/LO/0885. Our findings will be disseminated to those involved in eye care services. We will have a knowledge exchange event at the end of the study, published via the Health Technology Assessment web page and in specialist journals. The results will be presented at professional conferences and directly to patients via patient group meetings and the Glaucoma UK charity. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN15115867.
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.