ArticleEye (London, England)2024
Primary Eyecare Glaucoma Service (PEGS): a mixed methods service evaluation.
Article in Eye (London, England), 2024. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeA pilot study to assess the safety and efficacy of a Primary Eyecare Glaucoma Service (PEGS), with low-risk glaucoma patients being reviewed within primary care optometry.
methods98 low-risk glaucoma patients were identified as suitable for monitoring in primary care and reviewed by accredited optometrists in community practice supported by a clinical management plan. Safety was assessed by reviewing concordance of management plans created by primary care optometrists and the secondary care team. Patients' and primary care optometrists' feedback were collated via surveys. Carbon emissions were calculated through comparison of patient travel to primary and secondary care.
results93.8% of patients reviewed by primary care met criteria for ongoing monitoring in primary care after initial review with 4.9% of patients being recalled to secondary care due to clinical instability. Safety and efficacy were demonstrated with agreement of management plans between primary and secondary care of 97.8%, kappa =0.88 (95% confidence intervals 0.60-1.00), with no patients being identified as false negatives where recall back to secondary care was required. Overall satisfaction with PEGS was 100% according to a patient survey. Respondents of the primary care optometry survey felt very or somewhat confident in delivering care, with comments suggesting they felt supported by secondary care. Carbon emissions are reduced by approximately two thirds when patients are seen in primary care versus attending the hospital.
conclusionPEGS is a safe and effective service, reducing the burden for secondary care, while carbon emissions are reduced due to shorter travelling distances, demonstrating environmental sustainability.
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.