ArticleEye (London, England)2026
Ocular fundus examination in emergency medicine: an Australian survey of equipment, training, current practice, and clinician perceptions.
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.
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
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesFundus examination is critical for the early detection of serious ocular and neurological conditions in the emergency department (ED), yet it remains underused. This study aimed to investigate the current practice of fundus examination among ED doctors in Australia.
methodsA national cross-sectional online survey was distributed to the Australasian College for Emergency Medicine members. The 28-item questionnaire assessed demographics, equipment availability, training, confidence, practice patterns, perceived barriers and image-interpretation performance using five representative fundus images. Descriptive statistics and logistic regression were used for analysis.
resultsA total of 135 emergency clinicians completed the base items (58.5% female; median experience, 10 years [interquartile range 5.5-20]; 25.9% from regional/remote areas). Most respondents had access to direct ophthalmoscopes (94.5%) or slit lamps (63.7%), while a few had retinal cameras (10.4%). Although 42.2% clinicians had received related training in EDs, over half of them receiving it less than once every five years. While 82.1% of clinicians considered fundus examination important, there was poor agreement on appropriate indications, and only 50.8% reported performing it themselves when indicated. Only 26.5% doctors expressed confidence in performing and interpreting fundus examinations. Image-interpretation accuracy across images was 44.5% (95% CI, 38.5-50.7%). Doctors most reported low confidence, insufficient training as barriers, while enhanced training and portable cameras were the key suggested enablers.
conclusionUnderutilisation of fundus examination in EDs highlights gaps in training, standardised indications, confidence, image-interpretation performance and equipment usability. Addressing these barriers is key to improving neuro-ophthalmic triage and early detection of sight-threatening and life-threatening conditions.
Identifiers
42754692What 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.