ArticleBMJ open2026
Accuracy of ophthalmic referral diagnoses by non-ophthalmologists in acute eye care: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in BMJ open, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionOphthalmic complaints account for a substantial proportion of presentations to emergency and acute eye care services, yet initial assessment or referral is frequently performed by non-ophthalmologist healthcare professionals. Previous single-centre studies suggest that one-third of referrals are incorrectly diagnosed, potentially delaying appropriate management of vision-threatening conditions. However, the overall magnitude of diagnostic error and patterns of misdiagnosis across healthcare settings remain unclear. This study aims to systematically review and synthesise the evidence on the diagnostic concordance of ophthalmic referral diagnoses made by non-ophthalmologists in acute eye care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A systematic review and meta-analysis will be conducted following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols) guidance and registered with PROSPERO. MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid) and the Cochrane CENTRAL database will be searched from inception to April 2025. Studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of referrals made by non-ophthalmologist healthcare professionals in emergency or acute eye care settings will be included. Two reviewers will independently screen studies, extract data and assess risk of bias using the QUADAS-2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2) framework adapted for referral-diagnosis studies. The primary outcome will be diagnostic concordance between referral and final ophthalmologist diagnosis. Where appropriate, pooled concordance proportions will be synthesised using a random-effects meta-analysis. Condition-specific 2×2 diagnostic accuracy analyses will only be undertaken where valid binary target conditions and sufficient denominators are reported. Heterogeneity will be assessed using Cochran's Q test and the I² statistic with subgroup analyses exploring differences by referring clinician type and anatomical location of ophthalmic pathology. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required for this study as it will synthesise data from previously published studies; findings will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presentation at relevant academic conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD420261352717.
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.