rss
Br J Ophthalmol 2003;87:385-390 doi:10.1136/bjo.87.4.385
  • Value based ophthalmology

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

  1. T Y Y Lai1,
  2. V W Y Wong1,
  3. G M Leung2
  1. 1Hong Kong Eye Hospital, 147K Argyle Street, Kowloon, Hong Kong SAR, People's Republic of China
  2. 2Department of Community Medicine, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, People's Republic of China
  1. Correspondence to: Dr Timothy Y Y Lai, Hong Kong Eye Hospital, 147K Argyle Street, Kowloon, Hong Kong SAR, People's Republic of China; tyylai{at}netvigator.com
  • Accepted 9 November 2002

Abstract

Aim: 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.

Footnotes

    This Article

    1. Abstract
    2. Full text
    3. PDF

    Responses

    1. Submit a response
    2. No responses published

    Social bookmarking

    Register for free content


    Free sample
     This recent issue is free to all users to allow everyone the opportunity to see the full scope and typical content of BJO.
    View free sample issue >>

    Free archive
    The full back archive is now available for BJO. Institutional subscribers may access the entire archive as part of their subscription. Personal subscribers will also have access to all content when logged in. Non-subscribers who register have free access to all articles published before 2006, back to volume 1 issue 1.
    Register to access the free archive >>

    Don't forget to sign up for content alerts so you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.