FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2022256568> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2022256568 endingPage "2243" @default.
• W2022256568 startingPage "2243" @default.
• W2022256568 abstract "Mandal et al.1 have made an inspirational prospective comparison of the safety, effectiveness, and patient acceptance of different postoperative cataract review methods. They came to the conclusion that telephone review is a reasonable alternative to the other methods. However, we think the authors might have overlooked a major selection bias with regard to the study design and methodology, which may invalidate the study's data. There are several hidden criteria that patients must fulfill before a telephone review is deemed possible. First, patients have to be able to comprehend the content of the survey correctly through telephone dialogue. This automatically presumes that patients possess several competent physical abilities; namely, reasonable hearing, mental capacity of comprehension, memory, and appropriate speech response. Under these presumptions, elderly with hearing degeneration, senile dementia, or a previous cerebrovascular accident impairing speech articulation are likely to be excluded from the study. Second, patients recruited into the telephone arm must have a minimum command of English to achieve effective communication. People not speaking or not understanding English will also be ineligible for telephone review. Third, patients intended for telephone review must be equipped with a valid telephone number and machine. Accessibility is denied those without a telephone at their home. Most important, summation of these difficulties may imperil the overall safety and efficacy of the telephone review as a channel of communication in the prevention as well as detection of postoperative complications. This inference is supported by an extremely high incidence of postoperative endophthalmitis (2%) in comparison with other major studies of post-cataract-extraction endophthalmitis.2–4 Mandal et al. did not provide the baseline characteristics of the 300 patients enrolled; it is not clear whether obvious selection bias was properly controlled in the methodology. In the interest of readers, it would be helpful if further information could be provided. David T.L. Liu MRCS Vincent Y.W. Lee FRCS Wai-Man Chan FRCP, FRCS Dennis S.C. Lam MD, FRCOphth Hong Kong" @default.
• W2022256568 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2022256568 creator A5000503683 @default.
• W2022256568 creator A5031868855 @default.
• W2022256568 creator A5032051270 @default.
• W2022256568 creator A5057824357 @default.
• W2022256568 date "2005-12-01" @default.
• W2022256568 modified "2023-09-25" @default.
• W2022256568 title "Comparative study of first-day postoperative cataract review methods" @default.
• W2022256568 cites W2084627694 @default.
• W2022256568 cites W2125236612 @default.
• W2022256568 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2005.12.020" @default.
• W2022256568 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16473193" @default.
• W2022256568 hasPublicationYear "2005" @default.
• W2022256568 type Work @default.
• W2022256568 sameAs 2022256568 @default.
• W2022256568 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2022256568 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2022256568 hasAuthorship W2022256568A5000503683 @default.
• W2022256568 hasAuthorship W2022256568A5031868855 @default.
• W2022256568 hasAuthorship W2022256568A5032051270 @default.
• W2022256568 hasAuthorship W2022256568A5057824357 @default.
• W2022256568 hasBestOaLocation W20222565681 @default.
• W2022256568 hasConcept C199360897 @default.
• W2022256568 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2022256568 hasConcept C511192102 @default.
• W2022256568 hasConcept C545542383 @default.
• W2022256568 hasConcept C548259974 @default.
• W2022256568 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2022256568 hasConceptScore W2022256568C199360897 @default.
• W2022256568 hasConceptScore W2022256568C41008148 @default.
• W2022256568 hasConceptScore W2022256568C511192102 @default.
• W2022256568 hasConceptScore W2022256568C545542383 @default.
• W2022256568 hasConceptScore W2022256568C548259974 @default.
• W2022256568 hasConceptScore W2022256568C71924100 @default.
• W2022256568 hasIssue "12" @default.
• W2022256568 hasLocation W20222565681 @default.
• W2022256568 hasLocation W20222565682 @default.
• W2022256568 hasLocation W20222565683 @default.
• W2022256568 hasOpenAccess W2022256568 @default.
• W2022256568 hasPrimaryLocation W20222565681 @default.
• W2022256568 hasRelatedWork W1506200166 @default.
• W2022256568 hasRelatedWork W1995515455 @default.
• W2022256568 hasRelatedWork W2080531066 @default.
• W2022256568 hasRelatedWork W2529862481 @default.
• W2022256568 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W2022256568 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W2022256568 hasRelatedWork W2998865103 @default.
• W2022256568 hasRelatedWork W3031052312 @default.
• W2022256568 hasRelatedWork W3032375762 @default.
• W2022256568 hasRelatedWork W3108674512 @default.
• W2022256568 hasVolume "31" @default.
• W2022256568 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2022256568 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2022256568 magId "2022256568" @default.
• W2022256568 workType "article" @default.