Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40221830›Full record

ArticleOphthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists)2025

Visual field testing and glaucoma drug prescribing patterns in Australia.

Catherine L Jan, Algis Vingrys, Randall S Stafford, Mengtian Kang, Xianwen Shang, Wenyi Hu, Jiahao Liu, Sanil Joseph, Mingguang He

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

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 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Visual field testing and glaucoma drug prescribing patterns in Australia.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Catherine L JanCentre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, East Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7383-8208
Algis VingrysCentre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, East Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Randall S StaffordStanford Prevention Research Center, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA.
Mengtian KangBeijing Tongren Eye Centre, Beijing Tongren Hospital, Beijing Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Xianwen ShangCentre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, East Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Wenyi HuCentre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, East Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Jiahao LiuCentre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, East Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Sanil JosephCentre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, East Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Mingguang HeCentre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, East Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

Funding

Medical Research Future Fund MRFAI00035NHMRC Investigator Grant APP1175405Research Training Scholarship from the Australian Commonwealth Government
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo examine glaucoma practice patterns in Australia, focusing on visual field test uptake and antiglaucoma drug prescribing by optometrists and ophthalmologists.

designA serial cross-sectional study was conducted to describe visual field testing charges and compare them to changes in comprehensive eye examination charges, as well as to analyse Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) items for antiglaucoma prescriptions.

methodsThe study utilised Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) reimbursements for visual field testing from January 2003 to December 2022, along with PBS prescriptions for antiglaucoma drugs by optometrists and ophthalmologists from January 2008 to December 2022.

resultsFrom 2003 to 2022, rates of visual field testing per 100,000 population in Australia showed a consistent increase, except for a decline in 2020 due to COVID-19 lockdowns, particularly in Victoria. Optometry surpassed ophthalmology in conducting visual field tests in 2009. Prescription rates for antiglaucoma medications rose significantly from 2009 to 2022, following their inclusion in the optometric PBS, with prostaglandin analogues being the most prescribed. During the 2020 lockdowns, visual field testing decreased while antiglaucoma prescriptions remained stable.

conclusionsThe increase in visual field testing and antiglaucoma drug prescriptions underscores the expanding role of optometrists in glaucoma management in Australia. This rise has not impacted ophthalmology prescriptions, suggesting that the growing scope of optometric practice effectively reaches a broader patient population, especially amid the public health crisis of undiagnosed glaucoma.

Indexed as

Antihypertensive AgentsDrug PrescriptionsGlaucomaPractice Patterns, Physicians'Visual FieldsVisual Field TestsAustraliaCOVID-19Cross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleOphthalmologistsOptometristsOptometrySARS-CoV-2Antihypertensive AgentsAustraliaglaucoma careophthalmologyoptometryperimetryvisual field testing

Identifiers

PMID40221830
PMCPMC12153021

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.