ArticleCureus2023
A Quality Improvement Project of Acute Red Eye Consultations in Primary Care: Improving the Identification of Red Flags.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Global Perspectives on Therapy for Noninfectious Conjunctival Hyperemia: A Narrative Review.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2026Review
- A Closed-Loop Audit: The Assessment of Red Flags and Management of Acute Conjunctivitis in Primary Care.Cureus · 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim The acute red eye or conjunctival injection is the most common ophthalmic presentation in primary care. The aim of this audit was to improve red eye consultations by increasing the number of red flag features documented in the history of patients. Method The National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) Clinical Knowledge Summary (CKS) outlines red flag features, which should be documented for an acute red eye consultation. Two interventions were implemented to attempt to improve consultations. The first involved creating a template in the Egton Medical Information Systems. The second involved training doctors in the recognition of red flag features and identifying sight-threatening conditions. Red eye consultations and red flag features documented were recorded in the two months before and after the interventions. Results All documentation of red flag features assessed in this project increased post intervention. However, lateralisation, visual changes, and eye pain were commonly asked prior to the intervention and did not show a statistically significant difference. They showed an increase from 90% (19/21) to 100% (19/19), 71% (15/21) to 84% (16/19), and 67% (14/21) to 79% (15/19), respectively. After the interventions, significant increases in asking about headaches (14% (3/21) to 74% (14/19), pupil changes (5% (1/19) to 58% (11/19)), and method of injury (high velocity 10% (2/21) to 84% (16/19), foreign body 14% (3/21) to 84% (16/19), chemical 10% (2/21) to 84% (16/19) were observed (p<0.05). Photophobia inquiries also significantly increased (14% (3/19) to 79% (15/19), P<0.05). Conclusion The number of red flag features identified and documented for acute red eye consultations increased with the introduction of an online template and a teaching session.
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.