Evidence Hub

Eye injuries in the elderly from consumer products in the United States: 2001-2007

Chen AJ, Kim JG, Linakis JG, Mello MJ, Greenberg PB

Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie, 2013

Abstract

PURPOSE: To quantify and characterize eye injuries related to consumer products in elderly patients (≥ 65) treated in United States (US) hospital emergency departments (EDs) in 2001-2007.

DESIGN: Retrospective study.

PARTICIPANTS: The study comprised 1,455 patient cases.

METHODS: Descriptive analysis of consumer-product (CP)-related eye injury data derived from the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System, a probability sample of 100 hospitals nationwide with 24-hour EDs. Narrative data was used to assign each case with the CP causing the eye injury, correcting for cases with misclassified CP codes. The proportions of eye injury visits were calculated by age, gender, diagnosis, disposition, locale of incident, and CP categories. The patient population included ocular injuries of all severity levels. We examined data for all non-fatal eye injuries in elderly patients (≥ 65) treated in US EDs in 2001-2007.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Age, gender, diagnosis, case disposition, locale of incident, CP causing the injury.

RESULTS: There were an estimated 67,864 visits to United States EDs by patients >65 years for CP-related eye injuries during the study period, of which 64 % (43,105; 95 % confidence interval [CI], 40,739-45,472) were by males; 70 % (CI, 44,837-49,496) occurred at home. Chemicals (22 %; 15,236; CI, 13,482-16,989), followed by cutting tools/construction (21 %; 14,524; CI, 12,777-16,272), furniture (15 %; 10,145; CI, 8,724-11,566), and gardening (14 %; 9,467; CI,…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free