ArticleEye (London, England)2024
Ophthalmology inpatient consultations: an Irish tertiary hospital experience.
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 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.
- Inpatient urology consultations: intervention rates, determinant factors, and findings related to the refugee population.World journal of urology · 2025Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOphthalmology consultation on inpatients is often important to optimise eye care and provide information for referring teams. Inpatient consultation may constitute a not-insignificant workload however. This study reports on the nature and necessity of ophthalmology inpatient consults in a large Irish hospital.
methodsRetrospective analysis of all consecutive ophthalmology inpatient consultations over a 12-month period.
resultsIn total, 359 consult requests were received primarily from adult medicine (57.9%), surgery (22%) and paediatric teams (18.4%). The most common reasons for referral were loss of vision (23.7%); visual field testing (15%); diplopia or abnormal eye movements (11.4%); and screening for ocular features of systemic disease (10.6%). Presumptive diagnoses by referring teams were correct in 29.5% of cases. The majority had normal eye examinations (53.2%) or non-sight-threatening features (16.8%), while a minority had acute eye pathology (30%). Most patients (80.4%) required no intervention. A minority required medical (12.5%), orthoptic (4.6%) or surgical (2.4%) intervention. The majority of patients (81%) were fit for transfer to the eye clinic and did not require bedside examination.
conclusionsOur study found a high proportion of ophthalmology inpatient consultations had normal eye exams and required no intervention. The quality of referrals was variable suggesting that clearer guidelines and more ophthalmology education is needed for referring teams.
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.