Observational studyBMJ open ophthalmology2024
Comparative outcomes of selective laser trabeculoplasty delivered by optometrists compared with ophthalmologists: a UK-based multicentre observational study.
Observational study in BMJ open ophthalmology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Microsphere-loaded dual-responseJournal of pharmaceutical analysis · 2026Article
- A Survey of Hospital Optometrists Performing Ophthalmic Laser Procedures in the United Kingdom.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026Article
- The safety and effectiveness of optometrist-delivered selective laser trabeculoplasty.Eye (London, England) · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSelective laser trabeculoplasty (SLT), a National Institute for Care and Health Excellence recommended first-line treatment for open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension, is increasingly delivered by optometrists. This retrospective multicentre observational study evaluates real-world outcomes of SLT comparing optometrist-treated to ophthalmologist-treated eyes.
methodsAdults aged ≥40 years receiving first SLT treatment at three UK hospital eye units (Aintree, Manchester, Macclesfield) between 1 August 2018 and 1 August 2021 were analysed using anonymised local audit data. Outcomes included intraocular pressure (IOP), visual acuity (VA), drop burden, complications including post-SLT IOP spikes, and composite treatment failures including repeat laser or glaucoma surgery, evaluated at 6-monthly intervals up to 24 months. Groups were compared with parametric and non-parametric tests, accounting for intereye correlation, and Kaplan-Meier survival analysis using composite treatment failure endpoints was conducted.
results207 eyes (131 patients) were analysed, 84 (56 patients) optometrist-treated eyes compared with 123 ophthalmologist-treated eyes (75 patients). No statistically significant differences (p>0.05) were found in change in VA, IOP or glaucoma drops from pre-SLT baseline between optometrist and ophthalmologist-treated eyes, at all time points. More cataracts were detected in optometrist-treated eyes, however, this did not affect differences in VA or cataract surgery frequency. More optometrist-treated eyes underwent glaucoma surgery, however, ophthalmologist-treated eyes had higher drop burden and chance of composite treatment failure up to month 18.
conclusionOutcomes of SLT treatment by optometrists and ophthalmologists are comparable up to 24 months post-treatment. Ophthalmologist-treated eyes may have had more aggressive eye-drop treatment, preventing the need for surgery.
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.