ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2024
Comparative Analysis of Glaucoma Screening Uptake Among First-Degree Relatives After Community-Based and Hospital-Based Approaches.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Family Screening in Glaucoma: A Scoping Review.Ophthalmology. GlaucomaArticle
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: Glaucoma is the second leading cause of irreversible blindness globally. Primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) can be genetically transmitted among first-degree relatives (FDRs). Therefore, screening for glaucoma in FDRs can significantly increase the chances of early detection. This study aimed to evaluate the differences in glaucoma screening uptake among FDRs in community and hospital-based settings and the underlying factors, as well as the prevalence of glaucoma in FDRs. Patients and Methods: Probands and FDRs who underwent screening were classified into two: community-based (group 1) and hospital-based (group 2). They were invited for screening by Village Health Volunteers and ophthalmic nurses, respectively, using information brochures. The FDRs underwent eye examinations, and those with suspected glaucoma underwent further testing for confirmation. Results: The response rates of probands were 261 (38.2%) for group 1 and 196 (48.8%) for group 2. The uptake screening of FDRs was 30.1% and 64.5%, respectively. Multivariate analysis identified that female FDRs {odds ratio [OR]=1.64; 95% CI 1.14-2.38} and those aged above 45 years (OR=2.06; 95% CI 1.32-3.21) were more likely to participate. FDRs residing outside Chanthaburi Province were less likely to attend than those within Chanthaburi (OR=0.36;95% CI 0.22-0.58). FDRs related to probands with blindness were more likely to participate (OR=1.69; 95% CI 1.13-2.54), as were FDRs with secondary school education or higher (OR=2.49;95% CI 1.48-4.18). Those receiving both medical and surgical treatment were more likely to participate (OR=2.22;95% CI 1.51-3.25). The prevalence of glaucoma was 8.3%, and 19.2% of screened FDRs were glaucoma suspects. Conclusion: Group 1 showed a significantly lower screening uptake than Group 2. The factors influencing the uptake of screening by FDRs are gender, age, geographic location, visual acuity of the worse eye in probands, education status of FDRs, and treatment modalities of probands.
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.