Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) Pub Date : 2025-03-30 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.2147/OPTH.S505365
Karin Landgren, Dorothea Peters
{"title":"Optometrists' Assessment of Pseudoexfoliation and Its Impact on Glaucoma Referrals.","authors":"Karin Landgren, Dorothea Peters","doi":"10.2147/OPTH.S505365","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To determine the frequency and accuracy of pseudoexfoliation syndrome (PEX) assessment in referrals from primary care optometrists before the new Swedish glaucoma guidelines were established, and to evaluate an optometrist's ability to assess PEX.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>We studied PEX assessments in 95 referrals (95 patients,189 eyes) with elevated intraocular pressure (IOP) from optometrists to the Skåne University Hospital in Malmö, Sweden, in 2019. We reviewed the frequency and accuracy of PEX assessments in referrals and compliance of these referrals with the new guidelines. In addition, an optometrist's ability to identify PEX was evaluated and compared to that of an ophthalmologist specialized in glaucoma. Patients referred were examined at the hospital for PEX, first by the study's optometrist and then by the ophthalmologist.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>PEX was present in 17% of the patients (16 patients, 19 eyes). The optometrist in this study positively assessed PEX in 12 of 19 eyes (63%) before dilatation and in 14 of 19 eyes (74%) after dilatation. Seven referrals included a PEX assessment (3 assessed PEX and 4 assessed non-PEX), all of which were confirmed as correct. Of the 16 patients with PEX, 13 did not undergo a PEX assessment before referral. According to the new Swedish guidelines, three of the 13 referrals would not have been accepted, meaning that two patients requiring treatment would have been missed, one with pseudoexfoliation glaucoma and one with ocular hypertension with PEX.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Very few referrals from primary care optometrists included a PEX assessment (7%). According to the new guidelines, necessary referrals would therefore have been rejected. Still, the study's optometrist detected PEX in the majority of patients. The risk of missing high risk patients requiring glaucoma treatment would be reduced if primary care optometrists assess PEX before referral.</p>","PeriodicalId":93945,"journal":{"name":"Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)","volume":"19 ","pages":"1111-1118"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11967345/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S505365","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:在新的瑞典青光眼指南制定之前,确定初级保健验光师转诊的假性角膜外翻综合征(PEX)评估的频率和准确性,并评估验光师评估PEX的能力:我们研究了2019年瑞典马尔默斯科纳大学医院从验光师处转诊的95名眼压升高患者(95名患者,189只眼)的PEX评估。我们审查了转诊者进行 PEX 评估的频率和准确性,以及这些转诊者对新指南的遵守情况。此外,我们还评估了验光师识别 PEX 的能力,并将其与青光眼专科医生的能力进行了比较。转诊患者在医院接受了 PEX 检查,首先由研究中的验光师检查,然后由眼科医生检查:结果:17%的患者(16 名患者,19 只眼睛)存在 PEX。本研究中,验光师在扩瞳前对 19 眼中的 12 眼(63%)进行了 PEX 评估,在扩瞳后对 19 眼中的 14 眼(74%)进行了 PEX 评估。7 名转诊患者进行了 PEX 评估(3 名评估了 PEX,4 名评估了非 PEX),所有评估均被确认为正确。在16例PEX患者中,13例在转诊前未进行PEX评估。根据瑞典的新指南,这13名转诊患者中有3名不会被接受,这意味着有两名需要治疗的患者会被漏诊,其中一名是假性角膜外翻性青光眼患者,另一名是伴有PEX的眼压过高患者:结论:初级保健视光师转介的病人中,只有极少数(7%)进行了 PEX 评估。因此,根据新指南,必要的转诊会被拒绝。尽管如此,该研究的验光师还是在大多数患者中发现了 PEX。如果初级保健验光师在转诊前对 PEX 进行评估,就能降低漏诊需要接受青光眼治疗的高危患者的风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Optometrists' Assessment of Pseudoexfoliation and Its Impact on Glaucoma Referrals.

Purpose: To determine the frequency and accuracy of pseudoexfoliation syndrome (PEX) assessment in referrals from primary care optometrists before the new Swedish glaucoma guidelines were established, and to evaluate an optometrist's ability to assess PEX.

Patients and methods: We studied PEX assessments in 95 referrals (95 patients,189 eyes) with elevated intraocular pressure (IOP) from optometrists to the Skåne University Hospital in Malmö, Sweden, in 2019. We reviewed the frequency and accuracy of PEX assessments in referrals and compliance of these referrals with the new guidelines. In addition, an optometrist's ability to identify PEX was evaluated and compared to that of an ophthalmologist specialized in glaucoma. Patients referred were examined at the hospital for PEX, first by the study's optometrist and then by the ophthalmologist.

Results: PEX was present in 17% of the patients (16 patients, 19 eyes). The optometrist in this study positively assessed PEX in 12 of 19 eyes (63%) before dilatation and in 14 of 19 eyes (74%) after dilatation. Seven referrals included a PEX assessment (3 assessed PEX and 4 assessed non-PEX), all of which were confirmed as correct. Of the 16 patients with PEX, 13 did not undergo a PEX assessment before referral. According to the new Swedish guidelines, three of the 13 referrals would not have been accepted, meaning that two patients requiring treatment would have been missed, one with pseudoexfoliation glaucoma and one with ocular hypertension with PEX.

Conclusion: Very few referrals from primary care optometrists included a PEX assessment (7%). According to the new guidelines, necessary referrals would therefore have been rejected. Still, the study's optometrist detected PEX in the majority of patients. The risk of missing high risk patients requiring glaucoma treatment would be reduced if primary care optometrists assess PEX before referral.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信