ArticleOphthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists)2025
The quality, accuracy and appropriateness of UK optometric age-related macular degeneration referrals.
Article in Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Optimising the patient pathway for macular conditions requiring intravitreal injections.BMJ open ophthalmology · 2026Review
- The quality, accuracy and appropriateness of UK optometric age-related macular degeneration referrals.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 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
purposeLittle is known about the quality of optometrists' referrals to secondary care for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD), despite the need for timely intervention. We analysed the content and accuracy of optometrists' referrals for nAMD. Adherence to UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic were assessed as secondary measures.
methodsOptometric referrals to a specialist macular treatment centre in Bradford, United Kingdom, between March 2019 and March 2021 were retrospectively analysed and compared with subsequent electronic medical records. Data were extracted on legibility, reason for referral, patient and optometrist demographics, visual acuity, reported signs and symptoms, patient diagnosis and patient outcomes. Binomial logistic regression models were constructed to determine whether signs or symptoms noted in the referral were associated with subsequent nAMD diagnosis in secondary care and whether optometrist gender or experience influenced nAMD referral accuracy.
resultsAcross all 394 referrals analysed, 256 were for nAMD. Referral accuracy for nAMD was 39.8% (95% CI [34.0%, 45.9%]), with the most common reason for misdiagnosis being dry AMD. However, 76.8% of patients referred for suspected nAMD were either treated in secondary care or observed over multiple visits. 20% of suspected nAMD patients were seen within the NICE recommended 14-day window pre-COVID, dropping to 5% during the pandemic (p < 0.001). Visual acuity was most strongly associated with nAMD diagnosis (χ
conclusionsAlthough the overall quality and legibility of optometrists' macular referrals to secondary care were of a high standard, the diagnostic accuracy of nAMD was below 40%. Referred visual acuity was the main sign/symptom associated with confirmed nAMD diagnosis.
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.