ArticleOphthalmology. Glaucoma
Family Screening in Glaucoma: A Scoping Review.
Article in Ophthalmology. Glaucoma. 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
topicTo assess the prevalence of glaucoma among relatives of known patients with glaucoma, describe the response rate of relatives in different glaucoma family screening programs, and summarize the barriers to family members' participation in these screening programs. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Population-based screening for glaucoma is a challenge since the prevalence in the general population is low. The presence of a positive family history is a known risk factor for glaucoma, but implementing family screening programs has not become standard practice yet. Further, the literature regarding the ideal strategy for implementing targeted glaucoma family screening programs is unclear.
methodsDatabases including MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, Joanna Briggs Institute database, and Epistemonikos were searched for relevant literature. We included studies describing probands with primary open-angle glaucoma, primary angle-closure disease, specifically primary angle-closure glaucoma and primary angle closure, pseudoexfoliation glaucoma, and pigmentary glaucoma. The concept of interest was the response rates of family members to the screening programs and the proportion of people with undetected glaucoma identified by these programs. We updated our search in February 2025.
resultsForty-two studies were included in the data synthesis. The median prevalence of glaucoma among relatives was 11.25% (interquartile range [IQR]: 8.1%-17.6%), and the median prevalence of glaucoma suspects was 19.45% (IQR: 8.4%-28.7%). Further, the median prevalence of glaucoma among offspring, parents, and siblings of probands across studies was 3.4% (IQR: 1.1%-8.8%), 31.6% (IQR: 20.9%-69.0%), and 16.2% (IQR: 10.4%-33.3%), respectively. The response rate of relatives to a screening program is highly variable. Direct contact with relatives, either via letters (median: 74.6%, IQR: 39%-82.4%) or telephone (median: 48%, IQR: 38.9%-69.8%), yielded better response in contrast to indirect communication through probands as in oral counseling of probands or issuing leaflets or cards to be given to their relatives (median: 12.9%, IQR: 8.6%-30.2%).
conclusionOver 30% of relatives of known patients with primary glaucoma either have glaucoma or are diagnosed as suspects. Response rate to screening programs is low. These programs should focus on directly engaging with the relatives. More evidence is required to identify the ideal age at which glaucoma screening needs to commence. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): 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.