ArticleEye (London, England)2026
The safety and effectiveness of optometrist delivered laser peripheral iridotomy.
Article in Eye (London, England), 2026. 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.
- A Survey of Hospital Optometrists Performing Ophthalmic Laser Procedures in the United Kingdom.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLaser Peripheral Iridotomy (LPI) is a commonly performed procedure resulting in a reduction in the risk of progression to Acute Angle Closure and subsequent glaucoma. Whilst demand for LPI has varied over the previous 25 years, non-medical clinicians have been increasingly utilised in the delivery of ophthalmic laser procedures. There is, however, a paucity of safety and effectiveness of optometrist-performed LPI.
methodThis was a retrospective study. The success rate was determined by the presence of a patent LPI at the first appointment post-procedure. Adverse events were captured from electronic patient letters from the procedure until the first appointment post-procedure.
resultsTwo optometrists performed LPI on 105 eyes. Presence of a patent iridotomy was documented in 93% and 89% for optometrist one and two, respectively (n = 95). Transient adverse events were reported in four patients. The remaining 10 eyes underwent a redo LPI.
conclusionOptometrists delivered a safe and effective LPI service with low rate of adverse events and high success rates.
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.