Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42342929›Full record

ArticleEye (London, England)2026

Evaluating the impact of follow-up interval selection on the demand-capacity gap in ophthalmology.

Kevin Gallagher, Ahmed Al-Janabi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Kevin GallagherCwm Taf Morgannwg University Health Board, Royal Glamorgan Hospital, Pontyclun, UK. kevin.gallagher@wales.nhs.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7751-5569
Ahmed Al-JanabiCwm Taf Morgannwg University Health Board, Royal Glamorgan Hospital, Pontyclun, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOutpatient ophthalmology services face rising demand, and delays in follow-up can result in avoidable sight loss. The problem is often framed as a lack of capacity, but a more accurate description is demand-capacity mismatch. We aimed to develop a generalisable framework to quantify how follow-up interval choice influences service demand, using diabetic retinopathy as a case study.

methodsWe framed follow-up scheduling as a three-way trade-off between appointment demand, disease detection delay, and risk of progression. The risk of proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) progression at 12 months was taken from Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) data. In the absence of intermediate time-point data, we interpolated cumulative PDR risk for months 1-12 using a constant hazard model, which assumes a uniform instantaneous risk of progression across time and provides a transparent way to estimate risk at shorter intervals. We applied this framework to the diabetic retinopathy service of a UK district general hospital and considered other service examples.

resultsSmall changes in follow-up interval produced large shifts in demand. In our service, increasing the mean interval from 4.7 to 6.2 months reduced demand by an estimated 700 appointments per 1000 patients annually. Illustrative examples in injection and glaucoma services showed similar effects.

conclusionsFollow-up interval is a powerful, modifiable determinant of outpatient demand. Quantifying trade-offs between demand, detection delay, and disease progression risk supports decision-making regarding follow-up interval selection. This framework complements, rather than replaces, capacity expansion and is generalisable across other chronic disease services.

Indexed as

Appointments and SchedulesDiabetic RetinopathyHealth Services Needs and DemandOphthalmologyDisease ProgressionFollow-Up StudiesHumans

Identifiers

PMID42342929
PMCPMC13538482

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.