SynthesisEye (London, England)2024
Confidence of Emergency Department doctors in managing ophthalmic emergencies: a systematic review.
Synthesis 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 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Large language models for primary care ophthalmic education: a systematic review.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Autonomous robotic alignment and dynamic illumination control of an ophthalmic slit lamp forJournal of biomedical optics · 2026Article
- Article
- Comparative Evaluation of Deep-Reasoning Large Language Models for Ophthalmic Emergencies.Ophthalmology science · 2026Article
- Article
- Visual screening in an orthogeriatric rehabilitation setting: a feasibility evaluation.Innovation in aging · 2026Article
- Optical coherence tomography in the emergency department setting: a case series.American journal of ophthalmology case reports · 2025Article
- Article
- Using multimodal imaging to improve the diagnostic accuracy and confidence in distinguishing non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy from optic disc drusen.Frontiers in neurologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEye emergencies constitute a significant portion of attendances to general Emergency Departments (EDs) in the UK, therefore it is important to assess the confidence of doctors who work in this setting in managing these potentially sight- and life-threatening presentations. This systematic review aims to assess the confidence of UK doctors working in general EDs in managing ophthalmic emergencies.
methodsMEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), ProQuest Central and Web of Science databases and grey literature were searched from inception to 1 October 2022 for publications that (1) featured doctors working in UK general EDs, (2) assessed doctors' confidence in managing ophthalmic emergencies, (3) contained original data, (4) were full-text, and (5) written in English. Methodological quality was assessed using the AXIS tool.
results462 articles were screened, and 7 papers included for data extraction, which collectively assessed the confidence of 956 doctors working in EDs in managing ophthalmic emergencies. There was a widespread lack of confidence amongst foundation doctors, which has worsened over time. Most doctors lacked confidence in performing funduscopy and using the slit-lamp, and considered formal ophthalmology training received in EDs to be inadequate.
conclusionsEvidence suggests a lack of confidence amongst foundation doctors in managing ophthalmic emergencies. High-quality evidence investigating the confidence amongst more experienced Emergency Medicine (EM) physicians was lacking. It is important to assess why foundation doctors feel so ill-prepared to manage eye emergencies and develop further ophthalmic training for doctors working in EDs. Further investigation exploring the confidence of EM trainees and consultants is required.
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.