ArticleJournal of ophthalmology2026
Trial of an Internet-Based Cataract and Lens Exchange Registry in a Tertiary Teaching Hospital: Insights and Impact on Clinical Workflow.
Article in Journal of ophthalmology, 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.
- Trial of an Internet-Based Cataract and Lens Exchange Registry in a Tertiary Teaching Hospital: Insights and Impact on Clinical Workflow.Journal of ophthalmology · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the feasibility of an internet-based cataract surgical registry in a tertiary teaching hospital and compare the efficiency of a registry-based, prospective cataract audit with retrospective methods. Setting: Westmead Hospital, Sydney, Australia. Design: A continuous time-motion study. Methods: The duration of pre- and postoperative cataract consultations were measured before and after the introduction of the internet-based Cataract & Lens Exchange Analysis & Register log. Outcomes assessed were the total duration of the consultation, medical record keeping and patient facing activities. A clinician survey was completed, and comparison was made in auditing times between the prospective registry data and the retrospective chart review. Results: Use of the registry added on average an extra 1.7 min to the standard consultation, but this was not significant ( Conclusion: The web-based registry was successfully trialled in a tertiary hospital setting without adversely affecting consultation time. The registry offers a substantial time saving over retrospective audit methods, which has the potential to improve engagement in quality assurance activities.
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.