ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2025
Assessment of Emergency Department Intraocular Pressure and Visual Acuity Assessment as a Screening Exam.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 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.
- Ophthalmology consultations characteristics in the emergency department at two level-one trauma centers in the United States.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2026Article
- The Prevalence of Ophthalmic Diagnoses and Exam Findings in Emergency Department Consults at Two Academic Hospitals.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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the utility of Emergency Department (ED) assessment of intraocular pressure (IOP) and visual acuity (VA) measurements as a screening tool for abnormal IOP and VA on ophthalmology exams. Patients and Methods: This retrospective cross-sectional study reviewed eye-related ED visits between February 1, 2022, and January 31, 2023, at Harborview and University of Washington Medical Centers (Seattle, WA) with same-day ophthalmology consultation. Electronic medical records were reviewed for right eye and left eye IOP and VA obtained by ED and ophthalmology services. The ED exam as a screening tool for abnormal IOP (>25 mmHg) and visual acuity (<20/40) on ophthalmology exam in either eye was evaluated using receiver operating curves (ROC). A calculator user interface was created to report sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) with a range of user inputs for both the thresholds applied to ED measurements and the targets for detection for Ophthalmology IOP and VA. Results: Of 1463 visits, IOP and VA were recorded in at least 1 eye by the ED in 627 (42.8%) and 821 (56.1%) patients, respectively. The area under the curve (AUC) for the receiver operating curves for ED screening was 0.846 for detecting an abnormal IOP and 0.863 for detecting an abnormal VA. The sensitivity of a value >25 mmHg on ED IOP testing was 0.78 (95% CI 0.69-0.87), and the specificity was 0.84 (95% CI 0.80-0.87). The sensitivity of a VA value logMAR >0.3 (worse than 20/40) on ED testing was 0.88 (95% CI 0.85-0.91), and the specificity was 0.59 (95% CI 0.54-0.65). Conclusion: ED acquired measurements of IOP and VA are useful to screen for abnormalities in IOP and VA on the ophthalmology exam. However, IOP and VA are infrequently obtained by the ED prior to ophthalmic consultation.
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.