ArticleAnnals of clinical epidemiology2026
Community pharmacist-led educational intervention to recommend ophthalmology visits for patients with diabetes: a cluster randomized controlled trial.
Article in Annals of clinical epidemiology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIt remains unclear whether pharmacist-led educational programs in community pharmacies could increase appropriate ophthalmic visits for patients with diabetes. We assessed efficacy of pharmacist-led education on ophthalmology visits for diabetes.
methodsWe conducted a cluster randomized controlled trial at 32 community pharmacies in Japan, targeting individuals with diabetes with no ophthalmic visits over a year. Pharmacists in the intervention group received online training on diabetic retinopathy and educated patients, while the control group received a pamphlet. The primary outcome was ophthalmic visits during the follow-up period. Generalized estimating equations were performed with two adjusted models: age and sex (model 1), and additionally diabetic retinopathy factors (model 2). Key secondary outcomes were changes in behavior for ophthalmic visits and glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels.
resultsOverall, 268 patients were included (133 intervention and 135 control). Participants' mean age was 60.1 years, and HbA1c level was 7.5%. Ophthalmic visits occurred in 18.8% (25/133) of the intervention and 20.7% (28/135) of the control group, yielding no significant difference (model 1, risk difference [RD] -0.03 [-0.14 to 0.08], risk ratio [RR] 0.88 (0.54 to 1.45); model 2, RD -0.07 [-0.21 to 0.08], RR 0.73 [0.41 to 1.30]). There was no significant difference between the two groups in the mean changes from baseline to 6 months in behavior for ophthalmic visits (0.07 [-0.23 to 0.37]) and HbA1c levels (-0.28 [-0.76 to 0.20]).
conclusionsPharmacist-led education on diabetic retinopathy did not increase ophthalmology visits or improve diabetes-related outcomes. Effective strategies to encourage ophthalmology visits are required.
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.