ArticleAnnals of family medicine2026
Do Vitreous Floaters Predict Retinal Detachment? Retrospective Cohort Study in Primary Care.
Article in Annals of family medicine, 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.
- Clinical characteristics and treatment willingness of outpatients with vitreous floaters: a real-world study in China.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeVitreous floaters are often considered harmless. However, floaters might be the first and only alarm symptom for a retinal tear or early retinal detachment (RD). Data from ophthalmology practices show that experiencing new-onset floaters is more strongly associated with retinal tears than experiencing flashes, but these associations have not been studied in primary care. We aimed to calculate the absolute risk (AR) and relative risk (RR) of floaters for RD in primary care.
methodsWe performed a retrospective cohort study of patients (aged ≥18 years) with new-onset floaters or flashes during the period 2012 to 2021 among 7 family practices in the Netherlands. Based on electronic health record reviews, cases (n = 1,181) were categorized into floaters, flashes and floaters, and flashes. The duration (acute, defined as ≤14 days) and number of floaters (many, defined as ≥10 floaters or a cloud/haze/curtain) were used as subgroups. We calculated the RR for flashes alone as the reference group.
resultsThe incidence (1,000 patient-years) of floaters and flashes was 5.5 and 2.7, respectively. The AR of RD was 6.1% for floaters alone, 4.7% for flashes alone, and 8.4% for floaters and flashes. Both acute and many floaters increased AR. The RRs for acute floaters and flashes (2.39; 95% CI, 1.11-5.15), many floaters (4.20; 95% CI, 1.87-9.40), and many floaters and flashes (6.20; 95% CI, 2.47-15.55) were significantly increased compared with flashes alone.
conclusionsData from primary care confirm that new-onset floaters confer increased risk of RD. Currently, family physicians use vision loss and flashes as important alarm symptoms for RD. Our primary care data revealed that floaters confer a greater risk of RD than flashes. This enables family physicians to make an evidence-based risk assessment for patients with floaters or flashes.
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.