Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37632154›Full record

ReviewOphthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists)2023

The effectiveness of interventions for optometric referrals into the hospital eye service: A review.

Josie Carmichael, Sarah Abdi, Konstantinos Balaskas, Enrico Costanza, Ann Blandford

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Elevated levels of mental health issues among optometrists in the United Kingdom.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2025
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Josie CarmichaelUniversity College London Interaction Centre (UCLIC), UCL, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4689-4786
Sarah AbdiUniversity College London Interaction Centre (UCLIC), UCL, London, UK.
Konstantinos BalaskasNIHR Biomedical Research Centre at Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and UCL, Institute of Ophthalmology, London, UK.
Enrico CostanzaUniversity College London Interaction Centre (UCLIC), UCL, London, UK.
Ann BlandfordUniversity College London Interaction Centre (UCLIC), UCL, London, UK.
London Centre for Nanotechnology · GBMoorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council EP/S021930/1Health Technology Assessment Programme 18/182 HTA Digital Technologies to Improve Health and CareHealth Technology Assessment Programme ProjectNational Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre at Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and UCL Institute of Ophthalmology IS-BRC-1215-20002
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeOphthalmic services are currently under considerable stress; in the UK, ophthalmology departments have the highest number of outpatient appointments of any department within the National Health Service. Recognising the need for intervention, several approaches have been trialled to tackle the high numbers of false-positive referrals initiated in primary care and seen face to face within the hospital eye service (HES). In this mixed-methods narrative synthesis, we explored interventions based on their clinical impact, cost and acceptability to determine whether they are clinically effective, safe and sustainable. A systematic literature search of PubMed, MEDLINE and CINAHL, guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), was used to identify appropriate studies published between December 2001 and December 2022. RECENT

findingsA total of 55 studies were reviewed. Four main interventions were assessed, where two studies covered more than one type: training and guidelines (n = 8), referral filtering schemes (n = 32), asynchronous teleophthalmology (n = 13) and synchronous teleophthalmology (n = 5). All four approaches demonstrated effectiveness for reducing false-positive referrals to the HES. There was sufficient evidence for stakeholder acceptance and cost-effectiveness of referral filtering schemes; however, cost comparisons involved assumptions. Referral filtering and asynchronous teleophthalmology reported moderate levels of false-negative cases (2%-20%), defined as discharged patients requiring HES monitoring. SUMMARY: The effectiveness of interventions varied depending on which outcome and stakeholder was considered. More studies are required to explore stakeholder opinions around all interventions. In order to maximise clinical safety, it may be appropriate to combine more than one approach, such as referral filtering schemes with virtual review of discharged patients to assess the rate of false-negative cases. The implementation of a successful intervention is more complex than a 'one-size-fits-all' approach and there is potential space for newer types of interventions, such as artificial intelligence clinical support systems within the referral pathway.

Indexed as

OptometryReferral and ConsultationEye DiseasesHumansOphthalmologyUnited Kingdomenhanced referralsfalse-positiveindependent prescribingoptometristsoptometryprimary eye carereferralsteleophthalmology

Identifiers

PMID37632154
PMCPMC10947293
OpenAlexW4386188209

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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 Socratic graph.