ArticleOphthalmology science2026
Data Duplication and Errors in Large Medical Data Sets: A Case Study in the IRIS® Registry.
Article in Ophthalmology science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative Endophthalmitis Rates in Adult and Pediatric Patients across Various Ophthalmic Procedures: An IRIS® Registry Analysis.Ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Timing and Determinants of Postinjection Endophthalmitis after First-Time Anti-VEGF Administration: A Retrospective National Study in the American Academy of Ophthalmology IRIS® Registry (Intelligent Research in Sight).Ophthalmology. Retina · 2026Article
- Intravitreal Anti-VEGF Injection Transitions Across Bevacizumab, Biosimilar, and Branded Medications: The IRIS Registry Study.Journal of vitreoretinal diseases · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To investigate entry errors and data duplication within the American Academy of Ophthalmology IRIS® Registry (Intelligent Research in Sight) utilizing cataract surgery (CS), neodymium-doped: yttrium aluminum garnet (YAG) capsulotomy, age-related macular degeneration (AMD), and diabetic retinopathy (DR) records. Design: Retrospective cohort study. Participants: Patients in the IRIS Registry. Methods: We collected records of CS and YAG capsulotomy with specified laterality within the IRIS Registry (years 2013-2023), identifying eyes having >1 record and eyes having ≥1 record Main Outcome Measures: For CS and YAG capsulotomy, we measure the proportion of eyes having >1 procedure record, having >1 record only on the initial procedure date, and having ≥1 procedure record on a date after the first entry. For DR and AMD, we measure the proportion of eyes reverting to an earlier stage after starting at a later stage and the proportion reverting to an earlier stage after transitioning to a later stage. Results: Of the 14 718 896 CS-treated eyes, 30.9% had duplicates, with 5.5% having Conclusions: Data duplication in large medical data sets necessitates caution when analyzing repeated procedures or relapsing conditions. Addressing problematic errors requires transparency and communication amongst stakeholders across organizations. Within the IRIS Registry, the results indicated an association between the first record's originating practice and data errors, providing an investigative entry point for upstream data stewards. Financial Disclosures: Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.
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.