ArticleDie Ophthalmologie2026
[TOVIS pilot study-Aftercare effects of teleophthalmological diagnostics in senior living].
Article in Die Ophthalmologie, 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.
- [Ophthalmological care of senior citizens in residential nursing facilities : Care gaps, the TOVIS study and ways to an improved ophthalmological care].Zeitschrift fur Gerontologie und Geriatrie · 2026Review
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
Abstract
backgroundRemote teleophthalmological examinations can reduce access barriers for nursing home residents; however, it is unclear to what extent an actual ophthalmological aftercare can be realized.
objectiveThe acceptance of the model, aftercare participation rate and the reasons for not contacting a medical specialist when indicated were examined 6 months after a remote ophthalmological first examination during the TOVIS pilot study. MATERIAL AND
methodsResidents in two nursing homes who had participated in the TOVIS pilot study were surveyed in writing 6 months after the first examination. Data were acquired on 1) utilization of a recommended ophthalmological follow-up examination, 2) reasons for not participating in a recommended ophthalmological aftercare, 3) assessment of the remote examination using a Likert scale. Descriptive statistics, χ
resultsOf the 86 originally examined residents, 64 (participation rate 74%, mean age 82.6 ± 8.8 years, 60.9 % female) participated in the follow-up survey. The remote ophthalmological examination was broadly accepted, 83.6% assessed it as meaningful (≥ 8 on the 10-point Likert scale), 82.5% would participate again and 76.9% would recommend the offer to others. Although 52 residents received the recommendation of an ophthalmological follow-up examination, after 6 months only 14/52 (26.9%) followed this recommendation. Findings that required treatment were in particular vision-relevant cataract (50%), glaucoma (21%) and subretinal or intraretinal fluid (7%), which were predominantly (68.8%) previously unknown to those affected. The major reasons for the 38 residents who did not participate in the aftercare were no complaints (31.6%), no desire for treatment (23.7%) and problems with transport or accompanying persons (10.5%). DISCUSSION: The remote ophthalmological model study showed a high acceptance among the participants but there was a clear discrepancy between the express recommendation and the actually realized consultation with a medical specialist. Neither the presence of potentially vision-threatening findings nor the urgency of the recommendation significantly increased the compliance for aftercare. Therefore, for the realization of the full benefit of teleophthalmological programs for residents of nursing homes for the aged, supplementary measures are necessary, such as patient-centered clarification, structured appointment management and logistic support for the continuation with a visit to the practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42295350What 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.