ArticleEye (London, England)2024
Enhancing Ophthalmic Triage: identification of new clinical features to support healthcare professionals in triage.
Article in Eye (London, England), 2024. 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.
- An education-based intervention investigating the accuracy of community-based optometrists evaluating limbal anterior chamber depth.Eye (London, England) · 2025Article
- Evaluating Ocular Healthcare Accessibility and the Severity of Emergencies during Times of Crisis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
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
objectiveTo investigate which features from a patient's history are either high or low risk that could support healthcare professionals in ophthalmic emergency triage.
methodsProspective, 12,584 visits from 11,733 adult patients attending an Accident and Emergency department at a single tertiary centre were analysed. Data were collected by ophthalmic nurses working in triage, using an online form from August 2021 to April 2022. Multivariate analysis (MVA) was conducted to identify which features from the patients' history would be associated with emergency care.
resultsThis study found that 45.5% (5731 patient visits (PV)) required a same day eye emergency examination (SDEE), 11.3% (1416 PV) needed urgent care, and 43.2% (5437 PV) were appropriate for elective consultations with a GP or optometrist. The MVA top ten features that were statistically significant (p < 0.05) that would warrant SDEE with odds ratio (95% CI) were: bilateral eye injury 36.5 [15.6-85.5], unilateral eye injury 25.8 [20.9-31.7], vision loss 4.8 [2.9-7.8], post-operative ophthalmic ( < 4 weeks) 4.6 [3.8-5.7], contact lens wearer 3.9 [3.3-4.7], history of uveitis 3.9 [3.3-4.7], photophobia 2.9 [2.4-3.6], unilateral dark shadow/curtain in vision 2.4 [1.8-3.0], unilateral injected red eye 2.0 [1.8-2.2] and rapid change in visual acuity 1.8 [1.5-2.2].
conclusionThis study characterises presenting features covering almost 100 ophthalmic acute presentations that are commonly seen in emergency and elective care. This information could supplement current red flag indicators and support healthcare professionals in ophthalmic triage. Further research is required to evaluate the cost effectivity and safety of our findings for triaging acute presentations.
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.