The Current Role of Orthoptists: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: This review aimed to determine the tasks performed by orthoptists, the types of patients they manage, their work settings, the professionals they work with, and the professionals they receive referrals from and refer to. Methods: A systematic search of seven databases was conducted to identify all studies regarding the role of orthoptists that were published in English in peer-reviewed journals from January 2003 to January 2013. Reference lists of all included studies, as well as studies regarding ocular conditions which were excluded as they did not specifically report the role of orthoptists, were screened manually to identify additional relevant studies. Key orthoptic organisations (International Orthoptic Association, British & Irish Orthoptic Society, Orthoptics Australia, the Canadian Orthoptic Society, and the American Association of Certified Orthoptists) were asked to provide any literature relevant to this review. Studies were allocated to the National Health and Medical Research Council hierarchy of evidence. Systematic reviews were appraised using the Centre for Evidence Based Medicine Systematic Review Critical Appraisal Sheet, and level II or III_1 studies appraised with the PEDro scale. Data pertaining to the patient’s ocular conditions and co-morbidities, tasks performed, work settings, colleagues/ teams, and referrals were extracted and reported descriptively. Results: No relevant studies were identified; hence this is an empty review. Conclusion: No studies have been published (January 2003-January 2013) investigating the role of orthoptists. There is, therefore, an urgent need for research into this area to ensure that policy-makers can best utilise orthoptists within their health services and to ensure that the training of orthoptists matches the professional roles in which they are likely to undertake.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.024 | 0.119 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".