MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Virtual follow-up after cataract surgery: systematic review

2024· review· en· W4403483758 on OpenAlexaffabout
Angelica Hanna, Diana Lucia Martinez, Marko M. Popovic, Iqbal Ike K. Ahmed, Joshua C. Teichman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntraocular Surgery and Lenses
Canadian institutionsPrism Eye InstituteThinkpath Engineering Services (Canada)Trillium Health CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCataract surgeryCINAHLObservational studyMEDLINETelephone interviewVisual acuitySurgeryInternal medicinePsychological intervention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

TOPIC: To examine the association between virtual postoperative follow-up care and patient outcomes after cataract surgery. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Cataract surgery is a safe and commonly performed surgery. Follow-up visits are used to monitor for complications. It is uncertain whether virtual follow-up provides a safe alternative to in-person review. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL were searched from inception to October 2023 for relevant articles containing original data. Studies that (1) included patients who were seen in a virtual follow-up (ie, telephone or video call) for postoperative appointments after cataract surgery and (2) reported patient outcomes were included. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa and RoB2 assessment tools. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize findings. The review was registered in PROSPERO (registration number, CRD42023477207), and PRISMA guidelines were followed. RESULTS: The search yielded 1710 records with 7 studies included in this review. The 7 studies reported on 2113 cataract surgeries in 1994 patients. The studies ranged between 2004 and 2020. Most of the studies (5/7) included only patients with uneventful cataract surgery. Virtual follow-ups were all conducted by telephone. The follow-up calls were made at varying timepoints including postoperative day 1 (n = 3), day 7 (n = 2), and day 14 (n = 1). 2 observational studies directly compared patients who had a telephone follow-up with a control group who had an in-person follow-up. There were no significant differences in complication rates ( P = .22) or visual acuity ( P = .28) between these follow-up groups. None of the studies reported serious adverse outcomes from replacing in-person follow-up with telephone follow-up. One study used virtual follow-up in conjunction with in-person visits for elderly patients and found that additional telephone follow-up was associated with decreased surgical recovery time and decreased patient anxiety. 3 studies reported on patient perceptions about telephone follow-up. A common theme was that patients preferred telephone reviews and found them to be more convenient than in-person follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with uneventful cataract surgery, virtual follow-ups seem to be a safe alternative to in-person visits and were preferred by patients. These conclusions are preliminary given the limited literature base, and further study is needed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.402
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0180.013
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.299 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cataract & Refractive SurgerySame topicIntraocular Surgery and LensesFrench-language works237,207