Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41488709›Full record

ArticleJournal of current ophthalmology

The Impact of Delayed Uveitis Diagnosis and Treatment: High Complication Rates at First Specialist Consultation.

Santiago Arias-Gomez, Mariana Cabrera-Pérez

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of current ophthalmology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Santiago Arias-GomezDepartment of Uveitis, Fundación Oftalmológica Nacional (FUNDONAL), Bogotá, Colombia.
Mariana Cabrera-PérezDepartment of Uveitis, Fundación Oftalmológica Nacional (FUNDONAL), Bogotá, Colombia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the prevalence of complications at the first uveitis specialist visit in patients at a tertiary referral center in Colombia and to identify risk factors associated with multiple complications. Methods: This cross-sectional study analyzed data from 374 patients (545 eyes) seen for the first time by a uveitis specialist between 2017 and 2022. Demographic and clinical variables, including uveitis type, duration, etiology, and complications, were collected at the initial consultation. Complications included cataracts or cataract surgery, glaucoma, macular edema, posterior synechiae, and severe vision loss. Logistic regression assessed associations between patient characteristics and the presence of three or more complications. Results: At the first visit, 66.6% of patients presented with at least one complication, and 17.6% had three or more complications. The most common complications were cataracts or cataract surgery (31.7%), severe vision loss (25.9%), posterior synechiae (23.5%), glaucoma/ocular hypertension (21.2%), and macular edema (10.6%). Risk factors for three or more complications included chronic uveitis (odds ratio [OR]: 14.19), delays of over 100 weeks from symptom onset to consultation (OR: 7.67), noninfectious uveitis (OR: 3.32), bilateral inflammation (OR: 2.25), active inflammation (OR: 2.31), and a history of cataract surgery (OR: 6.25). Conclusion: The high prevalence of complications on the first specialist visit highlights the need for early referral and timely management of uveitis. Delays in care, compounded by limited specialist access, likely contribute to these outcomes.

Indexed as

ComplicationsPrevalenceRisk factorsUveitis

Identifiers

PMID41488709
PMCPMC12758862

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.