ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2025
The Prevalence of Ophthalmic Diagnoses and Exam Findings in Emergency Department Consults at Two Academic Hospitals.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To report the prevalence of abnormal ophthalmic exam findings in Emergency Department (ED) ophthalmology consultations and provide foundational data for assessing ancillary diagnostic tools' effectiveness in an acute care setting. Patients and Methods: We reviewed ophthalmic exam findings from consultations at Harborview Medical Center and University of Washington Medical Center EDs (Seattle, WA) between January 1, 2022, and December 31, 2022. Data included visual acuity (VA), intraocular pressure (IOP), visual field by confrontation (CVF), extraocular motility (EOM), pupil exam, slit lamp, and dilated exam findings. Descriptive statistics were calculated for continuous and categorical variables. Results: A total of 2087 consults for 1946 patients were included. VA was 20/40 or better in 61.9% of right eyes and 62.4% of left eyes. Afferent pupillary defect (APD) was present in 12.6% eyes. The average IOP was 16.1 mmHg for the right eye and 16.1 mmHg for the left eye. Abnormal EOM in either eye or both eyes were reported in 17.5% and 2.5%, respectively, while abnormal CVF were reported in 16.9%; with homonymous defects in 0.8%. The most common slit lamp exam findings included cataract (31.94%), conjunctival injection (31.2%), and superficial punctate epithelial erosions (29.6%). The most common funduscopic findings were retinal hemorrhage (14.0% peripheral and 6.3% macular), posterior vitreous detachment (9.7%), and retinal vascular attenuation (6.7%). Conclusion: This comprehensive report of findings of ED ophthalmic consultations can be used as a foundational pretest measure for guiding the implementation of appropriate ancillary diagnostic tools for emergency ophthalmic care.
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.