ArticleOphthalmology science
Retrospective Optimization of the Hawkeye Orbital Fracture Prioritization and Evaluation Algorithms for Triaging Ophthalmic Care.
Article in Ophthalmology science. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Many orbital fracture patients are transferred to tertiary care centers for immediate ophthalmology consultation, though few require urgent ophthalmic evaluation or intervention. This overutilizes limited resources and overburdens patients and the health care system with travel and emergency department (ED) expenses. A simple, easy-to-use, clinical decision-making tool is needed to aid local EDs and triage services in effectively identifying orbital fracture patients who need urgent ophthalmic evaluation. Design: Single center, retrospective cohort study. Subjects: Orbital fracture patients aged ≥ 18 years who presented to the study institution's emergency department and received an ophthalmology consultation. Methods: Ocular injuries that required close monitoring or an intervention within the first few hours after presentation were termed urgent. Two Hawkeye Orbital Fracture Prioritization and Evaluation (HOPE) algorithms were developed to identify orbital fracture patients needing urgent evaluation; including 1 algorithm incorporating computerized tomography (CT) scans interpreted by ophthalmology (HOPE+CT). Algorithms were compared with 3 previously published protocols: the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (UTH), the South Texas Orbital Fracture Protocol (STOP), and Massachusetts Eye and Ear (MEE) algorithms. Main Outcome Measures: Correct triage of patients with orbital fractures who have urgent ocular or orbital conditions. Results: In the study institution's ED, 134 adult patients (145 orbits) were seen with orbital fractures in 2019. Eighteen (13.4%) had ocular or orbital conditions categorized as urgent. The HOPE tool resulted in 100% sensitivity and 78.4% specificity. The HOPE+CT tool resulted in 100.0% sensitivity and 94.0% specificity. The UTH algorithm was 91.7% sensitive and 76.5% specific. South Texas Orbital Fracture Protocol and MEE were both 100% sensitive but only 35.1% and 32.8% specific, respectively. Conclusions: The HOPE and HOPE+CT algorithms were superior or equal to the UTH, STOP, and MEE algorithms in terms of specificity while detecting all urgent cases. Implementation of a triage protocol that uses the HOPE or HOPE+CT algorithms could improve resource utilization and reduce health care costs through identification of orbital fracture patients needing urgent evaluation. An online tool that deploys the HOPE+CT algorithm in a user-friendly interface has been developed and is undergoing prospective validation before public dissemination. Financial Disclosures: Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.
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.