ArticleDie Ophthalmologie2025
[Surgery in ophthalmology during pregnancy].
Article in Die Ophthalmologie, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The new Maternity Protection Act (MuSchG) enacted in 2018, is intended to enable pregnant employees to carry out their work, to protect the pregnant employee and the child and to counteract discrimination. Nevertheless, a ban on surgical activities or even a ban on employment is often issued, although the law first requires the workplace to be reorganized to enable the pregnant employee to continue working. In many cases, such bans are issued without the legally required risk assessment, which constitutes prohibited discrimination. In ophthalmology, the sedentary nature of the work and the short operating times mean that conditions are comparatively favorable to enable pregnant doctors to continue their surgical work. The procedures following notification of pregnancy by a member of staff as well as some innovations in the MuSChG are explained. Hazards in ophthalmology, such as infection risks and the handling of hazardous substances (e.g., mitomycin C or 5‑fluorouracil) are discussed in detail. The potential handling of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) drugs in intravitreal injections and the risks of needlestick injuries in relation to human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and hepatitis C are also discussed. The nondiscriminatory requirements and support of female doctors during pregnancy are not only required by law but are also socially, organizationally and economically necessary in times of a shortage of doctors. This includes not only enabling surgical activities during pregnancy but also nondiscriminatory planning of the return to work in order to promote the training and further education of women during and after pregnancy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39869212What 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.