Observational studyEye (London, England)2025
Ophthalmic care at an academic medical centre for patients who were incarcerated or in immigration detention.
Observational study in Eye (London, England), 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
- Update of
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesOphthalmic care for patients who are incarcerated or in immigration detention presents complex challenges for patients and providers. There remains a paucity of literature investigating ophthalmic care for these marginalised populations. We investigated the delivery of ophthalmic care in an academic health system to patients who were incarcerated or in immigration detention. SUBJECTS/
methodsWe conducted a retrospective observational study and secondary analysis of electronic health record data for inpatient, outpatient, and surgical visits between 1 November 2018 and 30 September 2023 in an ophthalmology department at an academic medical centre in the United States for patients who were incarcerated or in immigration detention. Attendance at outpatient clinic visits and follow-up based on ophthalmic subspecialty, loss to follow-up, delays in follow-up, and rates of ancillary testing were analysed.
results1628 scheduled visits were extracted for 401 patients, of which 1084 were attended (2.7 ± 3.6 per patient) and 544 were cancelled or no-showed (1.4 ± 1.8 per patient). Patients attended 100 (68.5%) of cornea, 116 (64.4%) of glaucoma, 2 (28.6%) of neuro-ophthalmology, 139 (58.2%) oculoplastics, 9 (36.0%) of paediatrics/strabismus, and 109 (54.5%) of retina visits. Using a 2-week grace period for follow-up, 72 patients (40.9% with complete follow-up data) completed follow-up within 2 weeks. 229 patients (57.1%) were lost to follow-up at the end of the study period, which is consistent with data from previous reports on ophthalmic care at other centres for patients who were incarcerated.
conclusionsDelays in care and visit attrition were substantial for patients who were incarcerated or in immigration detention. More work is needed to quantify outcomes and address disparities in care for these marginalised communities.
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.