ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2025
Optometrists' Assessment of Pseudoexfoliation and Its Impact on Glaucoma Referrals.
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. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To determine the frequency and accuracy of pseudoexfoliation syndrome (PEX) assessment in referrals from primary care optometrists before the new Swedish glaucoma guidelines were established, and to evaluate an optometrist's ability to assess PEX. Patients and Methods: We studied PEX assessments in 95 referrals (95 patients,189 eyes) with elevated intraocular pressure (IOP) from optometrists to the Skåne University Hospital in Malmö, Sweden, in 2019. We reviewed the frequency and accuracy of PEX assessments in referrals and compliance of these referrals with the new guidelines. In addition, an optometrist's ability to identify PEX was evaluated and compared to that of an ophthalmologist specialized in glaucoma. Patients referred were examined at the hospital for PEX, first by the study's optometrist and then by the ophthalmologist. Results: PEX was present in 17% of the patients (16 patients, 19 eyes). The optometrist in this study positively assessed PEX in 12 of 19 eyes (63%) before dilatation and in 14 of 19 eyes (74%) after dilatation. Seven referrals included a PEX assessment (3 assessed PEX and 4 assessed non-PEX), all of which were confirmed as correct. Of the 16 patients with PEX, 13 did not undergo a PEX assessment before referral. According to the new Swedish guidelines, three of the 13 referrals would not have been accepted, meaning that two patients requiring treatment would have been missed, one with pseudoexfoliation glaucoma and one with ocular hypertension with PEX. Conclusion: Very few referrals from primary care optometrists included a PEX assessment (7%). According to the new guidelines, necessary referrals would therefore have been rejected. Still, the study's optometrist detected PEX in the majority of patients. The risk of missing high risk patients requiring glaucoma treatment would be reduced if primary care optometrists assess PEX before referral.
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.