ArticleFrontiers in neurology2026
Impact of an eye-stroke protocol with non-mydriatic ocular imaging in an emergency department.
Article in Frontiers in neurology, 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
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: The diagnosis of acute central retinal artery occlusion (CRAO) and branch retinal artery occlusion (BRAO) is often delayed or missed in emergency departments (EDs) because of limited ocular funduscopic skills and lack of immediate ophthalmology access. We evaluated the clinical impact of our Eye-Stroke protocol using non-mydriatic ocular imaging (non-mydriatic fundus photography and optical coherence tomography [NMFP-OCT]) in our general ED with remote interpretation by ophthalmology on the time to diagnosis and emergent management of acute CRAO/BRAO. Methods: Prospective consecutive series of 100 acute CRAO/BRAOs seen within 1 week of vision loss between June 2023 and April 2026 with NMFP-OCT in our ED. Results: Among 100 CRAO/BRAO eyes seen within 1 week of onset, 16 (16%) had vision loss within 4.5 h, 49 (49%) between 4.5 and 24 h, 35 (35%) between 24 h and 1 week (median times from presentation to NMFP-OCT 28.5 min [IQR, 17.75-57.5 min; range, 10-330 min], 96 min [IQR, 51-180 min; range; 9-317 min], and 134 min [IQR, 96-187 min; range, 30-337 min], respectively). The diagnosis of CRAO/BRAO was made from color photographs and OCT in 77/100 eyes, from OCT only in 19/100 eyes, and 3/100 eyes had uninterpretable imaging. 7/16 eyes presenting within 4.5 h of vision loss received intravenous thrombolysis (median door-to-needle time, 58 min [IQR, 46-78.5 min; range, 41-181 min]). The majority of the patients evaluated within 4.5 h were self-referred to our ED, whereas the majority of the patients presenting later were referred by outside providers or transferred from other EDs. Stroke workup found a major cause of CRAO/BRAO in 72%, and 17/94 (18%) had concurrent cerebral infarctions on brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Conclusion: Despite our Eye-Stroke protocol, facilitated by NFMP-OCT in our ED, only 16% of acute CRAO/BRAO eyes were diagnosed early enough to be considered for intravenous (IV) thrombolysis, which was administered to only 43% of those eligible. Rapid workup found a major cause of CRAO/BRAO in 72%, and 18% had concurrent cerebral infarctions on MRI. The main barrier to delayed diagnosis/care was transfer from other institutions/providers, suggesting that wide deployment of NMFP-OCT for remote diagnosis and treatment via existing telestroke networks is optimal for reducing time to diagnosis, avoiding transfers, and improving patient outcomes.
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.