The impact of <scp>COVID</scp>‐19 on the wait times and severity of surgical glaucoma cases evaluated at a tertiary eye center
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims/Purpose: COVID‐19 has caused shortages in health services worldwide. In Canada, this led to a relocation of medical staff, which paradoxically acted as potential barriers to access to care when considering the significant delays reported in elective surgeries. The purpose of this study was to assess the effect of pandemic related delays on the wait times and severity of surgical glaucoma cases in a single tertiary referral center in Quebec, Canada. Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, 182 and 201 eyes of patients who underwent glaucoma surgery at Hôpital Saint‐Sacrement, Quebec City, between the periods of March 1 to June 30, 2019 (pre‐pandemic) and 2021 (pandemic), were included. Severity data included mean visual field deficit, intraocular pressure (IOP), number of drops, and preoperative best corrected visual acuity (BCVA). The times from referral to surgery (referral time) and from listing date to surgery (listing time) were calculated. Results: Visual field deficit was −11.6 ± 7.7 dB in 2019 versus −11.6 ± 7.5 dB in 2021 ( p = 0.92). Mean preoperative IOP was 21.1 ± 9.70 mmHg in 2019 versus 20.0 ± 9.52 mmHg in 2021 ( p = 0.25). The mean MAVC in the affected eye was 0.60 ± 0.72 LogMAR in 2019 versus 0.55 ± 0.73 LogMAR ( p = 0.07). The mean number of preoperative drop classes was 3 ± 1 in both groups ( p = 0.56). The mean number of patients referred with oral glaucoma medication increased from 45 to 70 in 2019 and 2021 respectively ( p = 0.03). Time to consultation was 122 ± 120 days in 2019 versus 144 ± 136 days in 2021 ( p = 0.17), whereas time to list was 48 ± 57 days in 2019 versus 38 ± 43 days in 2021 ( p = 0.05). Conclusions: There were no statistically significant differences in the severity of surgical glaucoma cases operated on during the pandemic. Waiting list time decreased, possibly secondary to the prioritization of more urgent glaucoma cases over other ophthalmic surgeries. These reassuring data suggest that the barriers of the pandemic did not lead to a severe worsening of access to care for surgical glaucoma patients. References Felfeli, Tina et al. The ophthalmic surgical backlog associated with the COVID‐19 pandemic: a population‐based and microsimulation modelling study. CMAJ Open. vol.9 (4) 1063–1072. 23 Nov. 2021, https://doi.org/10.9778/cmajo.20210145
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".