ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2024
Physician-to-Physician eConsultations to Ophthalmologists at an Academic Medical Center.
Article in Translational vision science & technology, 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.
- Trend in Devices and Digital Tools for Remote Consultation From Medical Providers to Specialists: Scoping Review.Online journal of public health informatics · 2026Review
- Article
- Ontario Primary Care Practitioners and Access to Ophthalmologists Through Electronic Consultation.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Physician-to-physician electronic consultation (eConsults) are used across specialties; however, their effectiveness in ophthalmology has not been reported. This study evaluated the feasibility and diagnostic accuracy of a physician-to-physician ophthalmology eConsult program, assessed the timeliness of in-person evaluation, and characterized the clinical questions of non-ophthalmology providers. Methods: Retrospective review of patients for whom an ophthalmology eConsult was placed to Massachusetts Eye and Ear from February 2019-August 2021. The eConsults were reviewed to identify submission-to-response time, primary diagnoses by eConsultant, and referral outcomes. The eConsults were categorized based on clinical question, urgency, and ophthalmic condition addressed. Demographic data on patients and referring providers were collected. Results: One hundred ophthalmology eConsults were placed, and 100% were responded to by an ophthalmologist. An average of 1.6 ± 1.9 days elapsed from the time of eConsult to completion. Of the 30 patients who presented for in-person evaluation at an ophthalmology clinic, diagnostic concordance between eConsultant and in-person ophthalmologist was observed in 93% of cases (n = 28 of 30). An average of 28.9 ± 27.4 days from eConsult response to in-person follow-up was observed. The most common clinical inquiries were about appropriate triage/referral (24.4%), management (22%), and diagnosis (19.7%). All eConsults were non-urgent. The most common ophthalmic condition addressed was chalazia/hordeola (14%). Only 5% of patients presented to an emergency department for the same ophthalmic concern addressed by eConsult. Conclusions: Ophthalmology eConsults provide timely access to nonurgent ocular diagnosis, triage, and management and in our study seem to provide high rates of diagnostic accuracy for nonurgent ophthalmic conditions. Translational Relevance: Using ophthalmic eConsults can facilitate timely access to specialty care and reduce patient and provider burden.
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.