Table 19: Impact of eTools on Eye Examinations Conducted.
| Author, Year | Study Design | Length of Follow-up | Sample Size, n (Intervention/Control) | Results (Intervention/Control) | Effect Estimate (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Montori et al, 2002 (37) | RCT | 24 months | 399/208 |
Retina examination 69%36% of patients |
aORa2.4 (1.5–3.9) |
| Branger et al, 1999 (32) | Observational | 1 year | 215/60 |
Ophthalmologist assessment 64 (0.3)/18 (0.3) assessments (per patient) |
Mean difference 0.0 (0.0−0.0) |
| Cebul et al, 2011 (38) | Observational | 1 year | 24,547/2,660 |
Eye examinations 62.6%/30.8% of patients |
aDiffb 25.0 (18.7–31.2) |
| Henderson et al, 2010 (36) | Observational | 16 months | 3,432/688 encounters |
Referral to ophthalmologist or allied health professional 7.1/3.6 per 100 encounters |
aRCc 2.94 (NR) P = 0.002 |
| Herrin et al, 2012 (40) | Observational | 5 years | 10,017/35,033 patient years |
Eye examinations 41.8%/20.0% of patients |
aORd 1.5 (1.4–1.7) |
| Wells et al, 1996 (42) | Observational | 23 months | 2,049/1,190 |
Fundoscopy 90%/78% of patients |
OR2.54 (2.08–3.10) |
Abbreviations: aDiff, adjusted risk difference; aOR, adjusted odds ratio; aRC, adjusted regression correlation; CI, confidence interval; eTool, electronic tool; FRACGP, Fellowship of the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners; GP, general practitioner; NR, not reported; OR, odds ratio; RCT, randomized controlled trial.
Adjusted with logistic regression, further details not provided.
Adjusted for insurance type, age, sex, race/ethnic group, language preference, estimated household income, and education level.
Adjusted for GP age, GP sex, FRACGP status, work in deputizing services in preceding month, bulk billing for all patients, practice accreditation status, presence of a practice nurse.
Adjusted for age, sex, insulin usage, and year of study.