ArticleBMC ophthalmology2024
The profile of patients attending to the general emergency department with ocular complaints within the last year: is it a true ocular emergency?
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Underutilized Ocular Fundus in Emergency Departments: Current Progress and Future Prospect of Imaging and Artificial Intelligence for Patient Care.Ophthalmology science · 2026Review
- [Action algorithm: eye wash in cases of acute chemical burn].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2026Article
- Article
- Eye-related emergency calls and prehospital management in region Zealand, Danmark: a register-based cohort study.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Comparative Evaluation of Deep-Reasoning Large Language Models for Ophthalmic Emergencies.Ophthalmology science · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeOcular emergencies require immediate intervention to prevent rapid vision loss or functional impairment. The aim of this study was to determine the proportion of true ocular emergencies among patients who presented to the general emergency department with ocular complaints and were referred to the Eye Clinic.
methodsIn a retrospective cross-sectional study in a tertiary hospital in Istanbul, patients aged 0-100 years who presented to the general emergency department with ocular complaints between January and December 2022 were included. Inconclusive diagnoses and incomplete records were excluded. Patients were divided into three groups: top eye emergencies (TE), relative eye emergencies (REE), and non-emergency eyes (NEE).
resultsAmong the 652,224 individuals seeking care, 9,982 (1.5%) were referred to the Eye Emergency Clinic. Of these, 2,788 (27.9%) were female, and 7,194 (72.1%) were male, with ages ranging from 0 to 98 years. TopEye Emergencies (TEE), Relative Eye Emergencies (REE), and Non-Eye Emergencies (NEE) accounted for 13%, 60%, and 27% of the cases, respectively. Common top-eye emergencies (TEE) include chemical injuries, orbital-preseptal cellulitis, and orbital fractures. Relative eye emergencies (REEs) commonly feature corneal foreign bodies, corneal erosion, and conjunctivitis. Nonemulsion eye (NEE) methods involve simple eye redness, trauma without eye involvement, and subconjunctival haemorrhage.
conclusionsConsistent with the literature, 1.5% of patients presenting to the general emergency department had eye complaints.However, 27% of those referred to the ophthalmological clinic did not have an urgent eye condition. This is partly due to the high proportion of patients presenting to the emergency department with ocular complaints and the lack of knowledge of ophthalmological diseases by emergency physicians, leading to unnecessary referrals to the ophthalmology clinic, resulting in a loss of the workforce and reduced time allocated to patients with true ocular emergencies.
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.