ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2024
Evaluation of the Efficiency of a Digital Workflow for Cataract Planning in Patients with Astigmatism.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Digital versus manual workflows for cataract surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Einstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2025Pooled it
- Comparison of Clinician Review Time and Confidence with Optical Coherence Tomography Digital versus Print-Based Workflows: A Pilot Observer Study.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the efficiency and associated costs of a digital cataract workflow system and manual cataract workflow system for patients, with astigmatism presenting for cataract surgery in Brisbane, Australia. Patients and Methods: Sixty patients with bilateral cataract requiring toric intraocular lenses (IOL) were sequentially assigned to a manual cataract workflow (n = 30) or digital workflow (n = 30) using EQ Workplace (SW v1.7.0) running on FORUM (SW v.4.2.1.66) (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Jena, Germany). Each step of preoperative data acquisition and analysis was timed. Steps in each workflow were divided into presurgical planning time and total workflow time, the latter including the time required to input toric data into CALLISTO eye (Carl Zeiss Meditec). Secondary outcomes included staff costs within each workflow. Results: Median presurgical planning time using a digital workflow process was 6.51 ± 0.65 minutes, and using a manual workflow process, 12.32 ± 0.56 minutes (p < 0.001). Similarly, median total workflow time using a digital workflow process was 6.93 ± 0.57 minutes and using a manual workflow process, 13.49 ± 0.47 minutes (p < 0.001). Evaluating the staff remuneration during presurgical planning and the operating costs associated with running EQ Workplace, there was a cost-reduction of 35% per patient when using the digital cataract workflow process. Conclusion: Using a digital cataract workflow process is more efficient and provides staff cost-savings compared to a manual workflow process when planning for toric IOL implantation.
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.