ArticleEye (London, England)2026
Patient experience of and barriers to the eye examination.
Article in Eye (London, England), 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOphthalmic examination is central to the diagnosis and monitoring of eye disease. However, there is a paucity of qualitative studies about the patient's experience. The Patient Experience of Eye Examination eValuation Study (PEEEVS) was designed to evaluate patient experiences of key examination-related components of routine ophthalmic care.
methodsPEEEVS employs a cross-sectional, mixed methods design combining quantitative visual analogue scales (VAS) with qualitative semi-structured interviews. Data from 203 patients (M:F - 101:102) were analysed with respect to their experiences of topical anaesthesia, optical coherence tomography (OCT) imaging, tonometry, slit lamp examination, and mydriasis.
resultsQuantitative analysis indicated predominantly favourable responses, with median VAS scores ranging between 88 and 89 for all tests. In contrast, qualitative findings identified specific areas of concern, including challenges with maintaining proper positioning during slit lamp examination and OCT, particularly for individuals with pre-existing neck/back pain, larger body habitus, or advanced pregnancy.
conclusionsWhile participant experience of most monitoring tests was good, specific examination aspects can impact patient comfort and potentially affect long-term adherence to ocular monitoring. The study highlights the need for targeted considerations, such as ergonomic improvements and enhanced patient communication strategies to alleviate discomfort and support sustained engagement in ophthalmic care.
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.