ArticleScientific reports2023
Trends and practices following the 2016 hydroxychloroquine screening guidelines.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
This study aimed to understand the profile of hydroxychloroquine-treated patients, referral patterns, and dosing and to assess the adherence of eye care providers to the latest 2016 screening guidelines provided by the American Academy of Ophthalmology. Patients were identified using electronic health records (EHR) taking hydroxychloroquine and were seen by optometrists, retinal specialists, and non-retinal ophthalmologists. Review of EHR data includes demographic characteristics, indications, and dosing profile of hydroxychloroquine use, eye care provider managing the patient, and imaging modalities performed. A total of 166 patients were included in the study. The most common indications for screening were systemic lupus erythematosus and discoid lupus (52.4%) followed by rheumatoid arthritis (18.7%) and Sjögren's syndrome (9.6%). Ninety-two (55.4%) patients were on a higher-than-recommended dose of > 5 mg/kg/day. Patients who weighed less (mean 63.9 kg) were taking a higher-than-recommended dose (vs. 81.5 kg, p < 0.001). Although retinal specialists adhered best to the use of all three recommended imaging modalities, visual field testing was done appropriately for only 8.3% of Asian and 71.1% of non-Asian patients. In conclusion, there is substantial variability in screening by ophthalmic providers and prescribing practices compared with the current recommendations. In particular, there is a marked deficiency in correct visual field testing in Asian patients. These findings are important to highlight potential interventions to improve screening for hydroxychloroquine toxicity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.