File Download
  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Is ophthalmology evidence based? A clinical audit of the emergency unit of a regional eye hospital

TitleIs ophthalmology evidence based? A clinical audit of the emergency unit of a regional eye hospital
Authors
Issue Date2003
PublisherBMJ Publishing Group. The Journal's web site is located at http://bjo.bmjjournals.com/
Citation
British Journal Of Ophthalmology, 2003, v. 87 n. 4, p. 385-390 How to Cite?
AbstractAim: To evaluate the proportion of interventions that are evidence based in the acute care unit of a regional eye hospital. Methods: A prospective clinical audit was carried out at Hong Kong Eye Hospital in July 2002 to investigate the extent to which ophthalmic practices were evidence based. The major diagnosis and intervention provided were identified through chart review. A corresponding literature search using Medline and the Cochrane Library was performed to assess the degree to which each intervention was based on current, best evidence. Each diagnosis intervention pair was accordingly analysed and graded. The level of best, current evidence supporting each intervention was graded and analysed. Results: A total of 274 consecutive consultation episodes were examined. 22 cases were excluded since no diagnosis or intervention was made during the consultation. 108 (42.9%) patient interventions were found to be based on evidence from systematic reviews, meta-analyses, or randomised controlled trials (RCT). Evidence from prospective or retrospective observational studies supported the interventions in 86 (34.1%) patients. In 58 (23.0%) cases, no evidence or opposing evidence was found regarding the intervention. The proportion of evidence based on RCT or systematic reviews was higher for surgical interventions compared with non-surgical interventions (p=0.007). The proportion of interventions based on RCT or systematic reviews was higher for specialist ophthalmologists than trainee ophthalmologists (p=0.021). Conclusion: This study demonstrated that the majority of interventions in the ophthalmic unit were evidence based and comparable to the experience of other specialties.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/43579
ISSN
2015 Impact Factor: 3.036
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.873
PubMed Central ID
ISI Accession Number ID
References

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorLai, TYYen_HK
dc.contributor.authorWong, VWYen_HK
dc.contributor.authorLeung, GMen_HK
dc.date.accessioned2007-03-23T04:49:29Z-
dc.date.available2007-03-23T04:49:29Z-
dc.date.issued2003en_HK
dc.identifier.citationBritish Journal Of Ophthalmology, 2003, v. 87 n. 4, p. 385-390en_HK
dc.identifier.issn0007-1161en_HK
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/43579-
dc.description.abstractAim: To evaluate the proportion of interventions that are evidence based in the acute care unit of a regional eye hospital. Methods: A prospective clinical audit was carried out at Hong Kong Eye Hospital in July 2002 to investigate the extent to which ophthalmic practices were evidence based. The major diagnosis and intervention provided were identified through chart review. A corresponding literature search using Medline and the Cochrane Library was performed to assess the degree to which each intervention was based on current, best evidence. Each diagnosis intervention pair was accordingly analysed and graded. The level of best, current evidence supporting each intervention was graded and analysed. Results: A total of 274 consecutive consultation episodes were examined. 22 cases were excluded since no diagnosis or intervention was made during the consultation. 108 (42.9%) patient interventions were found to be based on evidence from systematic reviews, meta-analyses, or randomised controlled trials (RCT). Evidence from prospective or retrospective observational studies supported the interventions in 86 (34.1%) patients. In 58 (23.0%) cases, no evidence or opposing evidence was found regarding the intervention. The proportion of evidence based on RCT or systematic reviews was higher for surgical interventions compared with non-surgical interventions (p=0.007). The proportion of interventions based on RCT or systematic reviews was higher for specialist ophthalmologists than trainee ophthalmologists (p=0.021). Conclusion: This study demonstrated that the majority of interventions in the ophthalmic unit were evidence based and comparable to the experience of other specialties.en_HK
dc.format.extent1478215 bytes-
dc.format.extent25088 bytes-
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf-
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/msword-
dc.languageengen_HK
dc.publisherBMJ Publishing Group. The Journal's web site is located at http://bjo.bmjjournals.com/en_HK
dc.relation.ispartofBritish Journal of Ophthalmologyen_HK
dc.rightsCreative Commons: Attribution 3.0 Hong Kong License-
dc.rightsBritish Journal of Ophthalmology. Copyright © B M J Publishing Group.en_HK
dc.subject.meshEmergency serviceen_HK
dc.subject.meshEvidence-based medicineen_HK
dc.subject.meshMedical auditen_HK
dc.subject.meshOphthalmologic surgical proceduresen_HK
dc.subject.meshRandomized controlled trialsen_HK
dc.titleIs ophthalmology evidence based? A clinical audit of the emergency unit of a regional eye hospitalen_HK
dc.typeArticleen_HK
dc.identifier.openurlhttp://library.hku.hk:4550/resserv?sid=HKU:IR&issn=0007-1161&volume=87&issue=4&spage=385&epage=390&date=2003&atitle=Is+ophthalmology+evidence+based?+A+clinical+audit+of+the+emergency+unit+of+a+regional+eye+hospitalen_HK
dc.identifier.emailLeung, GM:gmleung@hku.hken_HK
dc.identifier.authorityLeung, GM=rp00460en_HK
dc.description.naturepublished_or_final_versionen_HK
dc.identifier.doi10.1136/bjo.87.4.385en_HK
dc.identifier.pmid12642295-
dc.identifier.pmcidPMC1771629-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-0037385140en_HK
dc.identifier.hkuros75840-
dc.relation.referenceshttp://www.scopus.com/mlt/select.url?eid=2-s2.0-0037385140&selection=ref&src=s&origin=recordpageen_HK
dc.identifier.volume87en_HK
dc.identifier.issue4en_HK
dc.identifier.spage385en_HK
dc.identifier.epage390en_HK
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000181860300006-
dc.publisher.placeUnited Kingdomen_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridLai, TYY=7202203581en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridWong, VWY=14420327300en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridLeung, GM=7007159841en_HK

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats