ArticleOphthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists)2026
Who Gets Referred for What? Large Scale Analysis of Clinical, Socioeconomic and Demographic Drivers Within Electronic Optometry Referrals.
Article in Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists), 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
objectiveTo provide the first large-scale analysis of Electronic Eyecare Referral System (EeRS) data, examining referral patterns, demographic differences and geographical variation by socioeconomic deprivation overall.
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted of 104,190 referrals submitted via the National Health Service (NHS) England North West's EeRS between June 2022 and May 2024. Descriptive analyses summarised referral destinations and putative optometric diagnoses. Chi-squared tests with Bonferroni correction examined sex differences across referral endpoints. Multivariable logistic regression assessed associations between deprivation (Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) decile) and condition-specific referral odds, adjusting for age, sex and ethnicity.
resultsMost referrals were directed to ophthalmology in secondary care (71.6%). The most common referral endpoints were glaucoma (12.2%), other medical retina (11.6%) and YAG laser capsulotomy (11.1%). Referrals within primary care accounted for 18.2%, predominantly referrals to general practice (15.0%), while referrals to glaucoma referral filtering comprised 3.0% of all referrals. Significant sex differences in referral distribution across several subspecialty endpoints were observed (p < 0.003). Deprivation-related and geographical variation was evident, with higher odds of cataract (Odds Ratio (OR) per IMD decile 0.97, 95% CI 0.97-0.98) and paediatric binocular vision referrals (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.94-0.98) in more deprived areas, whereas vitreoretinal, adult binocular vision and other medical retina referrals were more common in less deprived areas.
conclusionsElectronic optometry referrals showed substantial variation by condition and area-level socioeconomic context. Linking referral data to deprivation measures may help identify variation in referral activity and support strategies to improve eye examination uptake and optimise referral pathways.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42800845What 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.