Accuracy of ophthalmic referral diagnoses by non-ophthalmologists in acute eye care: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

Le résumé fourni par la source

INTRODUCTION: Ophthalmic complaints account for a substantial proportion of presentations to emergency and acute eye care services, yet initial assessment or referral is frequently performed by non-ophthalmologist healthcare professionals. Previous single-centre studies suggest that one-third of referrals are incorrectly diagnosed, potentially delaying appropriate management of vision-threatening conditions. However, the overall magnitude of diagnostic error and patterns of misdiagnosis across healthcare settings remain unclear. This study aims to systematically review and synthesise the evidence on the diagnostic concordance of ophthalmic referral diagnoses made by non-ophthalmologists in acute eye care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A systematic review and meta-analysis will be conducted following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols) guidance and registered with PROSPERO. MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid) and the Cochrane CENTRAL database will be searched from inception to April 2025. Studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of referrals made by non-ophthalmologist healthcare professionals in emergency or acute eye care settings will be included. Two reviewers will independently screen studies, extract data and assess risk of bias using the QUADAS-2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2) framework adapted for referral-diagnosis studies. The primary outcome will be diagnostic concordance between referral and final ophthalmologist diagnosis. Where appropriate, pooled concordance proportions will be synthesised using a random-effects meta-analysis. Condition-specific 2×2 diagnostic accuracy analyses will only be undertaken where valid binary target conditions and sufficient denominators are reported. Heterogeneity will be assessed using Cochran's Q test and the I² statistic with subgroup analyses exploring differences by referring clinician type and anatomical location of ophthalmic pathology. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required for this study as it will synthesise data from previously published studies; findings will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presentation at relevant academic conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD420261352717.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.