These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: [Glaucoma in practices of ophthalmologists].
    Author: Heuer J, Kerek-Bodden H, Bertram B, Graubner B, Brenner G.
    Journal: Gesundheitswesen; 2003 Nov; 65(11):648-52. PubMed ID: 14639523.
    Abstract:
    The aim of this study is to describe the prevalence of glaucoma among patients of office-based ophthalmologists on the basis of accounting data. The data can be taken from the so-called Patient-physician-panel for morbidity analysis (ADT panel) that has been developed by the Central Research Institute of Ambulatory Health Care in Germany. In this panel, the treatment data of patients treated by selected office-based physicians in North Rhine and Brandenburg are included. In both regions, 30 ophthalmologists were involved in the survey. The two random samples that have been performed, include the treatment data of nearly 55,000 patients from North-Rhine and of 58,000 patients from Brandenburg. The treatment prevalence of glaucoma with established diagnosis amounts to about 12% of the ophthalmologic patients in North Rhine and to about 13% in Brandenburg. If these figures are secondarily related to the total number of persons older than 39 years who are insured via social health insurance funds in these regions, the rates are 2.8 or 2.9% respectively. The majority of patients suffering from glaucoma (including suspected cases and exclusion diagnoses) underwent tonometry and it can be assumed that most of the patients received medical treatment. With the help of the morbidity panel, glaucoma patients with established diagnosis can be distinguished from those patients for whom this diagnosis has only been excluded and from cases where the suspicion remained unconfirmed. The standardised treatment prevalence of glaucoma almost amounts to the same rate in both regions. Ophthalmologists should use the additional specifications of the ICD-10 code more often (especially for cases of suspicion and exclusion). This would also lead to a higher significance of the ICD-10 terms indicated.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]