Perceived barriers and enablers to the provision of diabetic retinopathy screening for young adults: a cross-sectional survey of healthcare professionals working in the UK National Diabetic Eye Screening Programme

INTRODUCTION: Diabetic retinopathy screening (DRS) attendance in young adults is consistently below recommended levels. The aim of this study was to conduct a survey of screening providers in the UK Diabetic Eye Screening Programme (DESP) to identify perceived barriers and enablers to DRS attendance in young adults and elicit views on the effectiveness of strategies to improve screening uptake in this population. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Members of the British Association of Retinal Screening (n=580) were invited to complete an anonymous online survey in July 2020 assessing agreement with 37 belief statements, informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) of behavior change, describing potential barrier/enablers to delivering DRS for young adults and further survey items exploring effectiveness of strategies to improve uptake of DRS. RESULTS: In total, 140 (24%) responses were received mostly from screener/graders (67.1%). There was a high level of agreement that the DESP had a role in improving attendance in young adults (96.4%) and that more could be done to improve attendance (90.0%). The most commonly reported barriers related to TDF domains Social influences and Environmental context and resources including lack of integration of DRS with other processes of diabetes care, which limited the ability to discuss diabetes self-management. Other barriers included access to screening services and difficulties with scheduling appointments. Less than half (46.4%) of respondents reported having a dedicated strategy to improve screening uptake in young adults. Strategies perceived to be effective included: screening within the community; prompts/reminders and integrating eye screening with other diabetes services. CONCLUSIONS: Screening providers were concerned about screening uptake in young adults, although many programs lacked a dedicated strategy to improve attendance. Problems associated with a lack of integration between DRS with other diabetes care processes were identified as a major barrier to providing holistic care to young adults and supporting diabetes self-management

A randomised, controlled, observer-masked trial of corneal cross-linking for progressive keratoconus in children: the KERALINK protocol

INTRODUCTION: The KERALINK trial tests the hypothesis that corneal cross-linking (CXL) treatment reduces the progression of keratoconus in comparison to standard care in patients under 17 years old. KERALINK is a randomised controlled, observer-masked, multicentre trial in progressive keratoconus comparing epithelium-off CXL with standard care, including spectacles or contact lenses as necessary for best-corrected acuity. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A total of 30 participants will be randomised per group. Eligible participants aged 10-16 years with progressive keratoconus in one or both eyes will be recruited. Following randomisation, participants will be followed up 3-monthly for 18 months. The effect on progression will be determined by K2 on corneal topography. The primary outcome measure is between-group difference in K2 at 18 months adjusted for K2 at baseline examination. Secondary outcomes are the effect of CXL on (1) keratoconus progression, (2) time to keratoconus progression, (3) visual acuity, (4) refraction, (5) apical corneal thickness and (6) adverse events. Patient-reported effects will be explored by questionnaires. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Research Ethics Committee Approval was obtained on 30 June 2016 (ref: 14/LO/1937). Current protocol: V.5.0 (08/11/2017). Study findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: European Union clinial trials register (EudraCT) 2016-001460-11

A narrative review of adaptive testing and its application to medical education.

Adaptive testing has a long but largely unrecognized history. The advent of computer-based testing has created new opportunities to incorporate adaptive testing into conventional programmes of study. Relatively recently software has been developed that can automate the delivery of summative assessments that adapt by difficulty or content. Both types of adaptive testing require a large item bank that has been suitably quality assured. Adaptive testing by difficulty enables more reliable evaluation of individual candidate performance, although at the expense of transparency in decision making, and requiring unidirectional navigation. Adaptive testing by content enables reduction in compensation and targeted individual support to enable assurance of performance in all the required outcomes, although at the expense of discovery learning. With both types of adaptive testing, candidates are presented a different set of items to each other, and there is the potential for that to be perceived as unfair. However, when candidates of different abilities receive the same items, they may receive too many they can answer with ease, or too many that are too difficult to answer. Both situations may be considered unfair as neither provides the opportunity to demonstrate what they know. Adapting by difficulty addresses this. Similarly, when everyone is presented with the same items, but answer different items incorrectly, not providing individualized support and opportunity to demonstrate performance in all the required outcomes by revisiting content previously answered incorrectly could also be considered unfair; a point addressed when adapting by content. We review the educational rationale behind the evolution of adaptive testing and consider its inherent strengths and limitations. We explore the continuous pursuit of improvement of examination methodology and how software can facilitate personalized assessment. We highlight how this can serve as a catalyst for learning and refinement of curricula; fostering engagement of learner and educator alike

Femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery compared with phacoemulsification: the FACT non-inferiority RCT

BACKGROUND: Cataract surgery is one of the most common operations. Femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery (FLACS) is a technique that automates a number of operative steps. OBJECTIVES: To compare FLACS with phacoemulsification cataract surgery (PCS). DESIGN: Multicentre, outcome-masked, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial. SETTING: Three collaborating NHS hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 785 patients with age-related cataract in one or both eyes were randomised between May 2015 and September 2017. INTERVENTION: FLACS (n = 392 participants) or PCS (n = 393 participants). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was uncorrected distance visual acuity in the study eye after 3 months, expressed as the logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR): 0.00 logMAR (or 6/6 if expressed in Snellen) is normal (good visual acuity). Secondary outcomes included corrected distance visual acuity, refractive outcomes (within 0.5 dioptre and 1.0 dioptre of target), safety and patient-reported outcome measures at 3 and 12 months, and resource use. All trial follow-ups were performed by optometrists who were masked to the trial intervention. RESULTS: A total of 353 (90%) participants allocated to the FLACS arm and 317 (81%) participants allocated to the PCS arm attended follow-up at 3 months. The mean uncorrected distance visual acuity was similar in both treatment arms [0.13 logMAR, standard deviation 0.23 logMAR, for FLACS, vs. 0.14 logMAR, standard deviation 0.27 logMAR, for PCS, with a difference of -0.01 logMAR (95% confidence interval -0.05 to 0.03 logMAR; p = 0.63)]. The mean corrected distance visual acuity values were again similar in both treatment arms (-0.01 logMAR, standard deviation 0.19 logMAR FLACS vs. 0.01 logMAR, standard deviation 0.21 logMAR PCS; p = 0.34). There were two posterior capsule tears in the PCS arm. There were no significant differences between the treatment arms for any secondary outcome at 3 months. At 12 months, the mean uncorrected distance visual acuity was 0.14 logMAR (standard deviation 0.22 logMAR) for FLACS and 0.17 logMAR (standard deviation 0.25 logMAR) for PCS, with a difference between the treatment arms of -0.03 logMAR (95% confidence interval -0.06 to 0.01 logMAR; p = 0.17). The mean corrected distance visual acuity was 0.003 logMAR (standard deviation 0.18 logMAR) for FLACS and 0.03 logMAR (standard deviation 0.23 logMAR) for PCS, with a difference of -0.03 logMAR (95% confidence interval -0.06 to 0.01 logMAR; p = 0.11). There were no significant differences between the arms for any other outcomes, with the exception of the mean binocular corrected distance visual acuity with a difference of -0.02 logMAR (95% confidence interval -0.05 to 0.00 logMAR) (p = 0.036), which favoured FLACS. There were no significant differences between the arms for any health, social care or societal costs. For the economic evaluation, the mean cost difference was £167.62 per patient higher for FLACS (95% of iterations between -£14.12 and £341.67) than for PCS. The mean QALY difference (FLACS minus PCS) was 0.001 (95% of iterations between -0.011 and 0.015), which equates to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (cost difference divided by QALY difference) of £167,620. LIMITATIONS: Although the measurement of outcomes was carried out by optometrists who were masked to the treatment arm, the participants were not masked. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence suggests that FLACS is not inferior to PCS in terms of vision after 3 months' follow-up, and there were no significant differences in patient-reported health and safety outcomes after 12 months' follow-up. In addition, the statistically significant difference in binocular corrected distance visual acuity was not clinically significant. FLACS is not cost-effective. FUTURE WORK: To explore the possible differences in vision in patients without ocular co-pathology. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN77602616. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 6. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. Moorfields Eye Charity (grant references GR000233 and GR000449 for the endothelial cell counter and femtosecond laser used)

Spatio-Temporal Interpolation Is Accomplished by Binocular Form and Motion Mechanisms

Spatio-temporal interpolation describes the ability of the visual system to perceive shapes as whole figures (Gestalts), even if they are moving behind narrow apertures, so that only thin slices of them meet the eye at any given point in time. The interpolation process requires registration of the form slices, as well as perception of the shape's global motion, in order to reassemble the slices in the correct order. The commonly proposed mechanism is a spatio-temporal motion detector with a receptive field, for which spatial distance and temporal delays are interchangeable, and which has generally been regarded as monocular. Here we investigate separately the nature of the motion and the form detection involved in spatio-temporal interpolation, using dichoptic masking and interocular presentation tasks. The results clearly demonstrate that the associated mechanisms for both motion and form are binocular rather than monocular. Hence, we question the traditional view according to which spatio-temporal interpolation is achieved by monocular first-order motion-energy detectors in favour of models featuring binocular motion and form detection

Femtosecond Laser-Assisted Cataract Surgery Versus Phacoemulsification Cataract Surgery (FACT): A Randomized Noninferiority Trial

PURPOSE: To report the 3-month results of a randomized trial (Femtosecond Laser-Assisted Cataract Trial [FACT]) comparing femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery (FLACS) with standard phacoemulsification cataract surgery (PCS). DESIGN: Multicenter, randomized controlled trial funded by the UK National Institute of Health Research (HTA 13/04/46/). PARTICIPANTS: Seven hundred eighty-five patients with age-related cataract. METHODS: This trial took place in 3 hospitals in the UK National Health Service (NHS). Randomization (1:1) was stratified by site, surgeon, and 1 or both eyes eligible using a secure web-based system. Postoperative assessments were masked to the allocated intervention. The primary outcome was unaided distance visual acuity (UDVA) in the study eye at 3 months. Secondary outcomes included corrected distance visual acuity, complications, and patient-reported outcomes measures. The noninferiority margin was 0.1 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR). ISRCTN.com registry, number ISRCTN77602616. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We enrolled 785 participants between May 2015 and September 2017 and randomly assigned 392 to FLACS and 393 to PCS. At 3 months postoperatively, mean UDVA difference between treatment arms was -0.01 logMAR (-0.05 to 0.03), and mean corrected distance visual acuity difference was -0.01 logMAR (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.05 to 0.02). Seventy-one percent of both FLACS and PCS cases were within ±0.5 diopters (D) of the refractive target, and 93% of FLACS and 92% of PCS cases were within ±1.0 D. There were 2 posterior capsule tears in the PCS arm and none in the FLACS arm. There were no significant differences between arms for any secondary outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery is not inferior to conventional PCS surgery 3 months after surgery. Both methods are as good in terms of vision, patient-reported health, and safety outcomes at 3 months. Longer-term outcomes of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness are awaited

Effect of Corneal Cross-linking versus Standard Care on Keratoconus Progression in Young Patients: The KERALINK Randomized Controlled Trial

PURPOSE: To examine the efficacy and safety of corneal cross-linking (CXL) for stabilization of progressive keratoconus. DESIGN: Observer-masked, randomized, controlled, parallel-group superiority trial. PARTICIPANTS: Sixty participants 10 to 16 years of age with progressive keratoconus, one eye of each deemed the study eye. METHODS: The study eye was randomized to either CXL plus standard care or standard care alone, with spectacle or contact lens correction as necessary for vision. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was steep keratometry (K2) in the study eye as a measure of the steepness of the cornea at 18 months. Secondary outcomes included keratoconus progression defined as a 1.5-diopter (D) increase in K2, visual acuity, keratoconus apex corneal thickness, and quality of life. RESULTS: Of 60 participants, 30 were randomized to CXL and standard care groups. Of these, 30 patients in the CXL group and 28 patients in the standard care group were analyzed. Mean K2 in the study eye 18 months after randomization was 49.7 D (standard deviation [SD], 3.8 D) in the CXL group and 53.4 D (SD, 5.8 D) in the standard care group. The adjusted mean difference in K2 in the study eye was -3.0 D (95% confidence interval [CI], -4.9 to -1.1 D; P = 0.002), favoring CXL. Adjusted differences between groups in uncorrected and corrected vision favored eyes receiving CXL: -0.31 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR; 95% CI, -0.50 to -0.11 logMAR; P = 0.002) and -0.51 logMAR (95% CI, -1.37 to 0.35 logMAR; P = 0.002). Keratoconus progression in the study eye occurred in 2 patients (7%) randomized to CXL compared with 12 patients (43%) randomized to standard care. The unadjusted odds ratio suggests that on average, patients in the CXL arm had 90% (odds ratio, 0.1; 95% CI, 0.02-0.48; P = 0.004) lower odds of experiencing progression compared with those receiving standard care. CONCLUSIONS: CXL arrests progression of keratoconus in the majority of young patients. CXL should be considered as a first-line treatment in progressive disease. If the arrest of keratoconus progression induced by CXL is sustained in longer follow-up, particular benefit may be derived from avoiding a later requirement for contact lens wear or corneal transplantation

Epithelium-off corneal cross-linking surgery compared with standard care in 10- to 16-year-olds with progressive keratoconus: the KERALINK RCT

Background: Keratoconus is a disease of the cornea affecting vision that is usually first diagnosed in the first three decades. The abnormality of corneal shape and thickness tends to progress until the patient reaches approximately 30 years of age. Epithelium-off corneal cross-linking is a procedure that has been demonstrated to be effective in randomised trials in adults and observational studies in young patients. // Objectives: The KERALINK trial examined the efficacy and safety of epithelium-off corneal cross-linking, compared with standard care by spectacle or contact lens correction, for stabilisation of progressive keratoconus. // Design: In this observer-masked, randomised, controlled, parallel-group superiority trial, 60 participants aged 10–16 years with progressive keratoconus were randomised; 58 participants completed the study. Progression was defined as a 1.5 D increase in corneal power measured by maximum or mean power (K2) in the steepest corneal meridian in the study eye, measured by corneal tomography. // Setting: Referral clinics in four UK hospitals. // Interventions: Participants were randomised to corneal cross-linking plus standard care or standard care alone, with spectacle or contact lens correction as necessary for vision, and were monitored for 18 months. // Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was K2 in the study eye as a measure of the steepness of the cornea at 18 months post randomisation. Secondary outcomes included keratoconus progression, visual acuity, keratoconus apex corneal thickness and quality of life. // Results: Of 60 participants, 30 were randomised to the corneal cross-linking and standard-care groups. Of these, 30 patients in the corneal cross-linking group and 28 patients in the standard-care group were analysed. The mean (standard deviation) K2 in the study eye at 18 months post randomisation was 49.7 D (3.8 D) in the corneal cross-linking group and 53.4 D (5.8 D) in the standard-care group. The adjusted mean difference in K2 in the study eye was –3.0 D (95% confidence interval –4.93 D to –1.08 D; p = 0.002), favouring corneal cross-linking. Uncorrected and corrected differences in logMAR vision at 18 months were better in eyes receiving corneal cross-linking: –0.31 (95% confidence interval –0.50 to –0.11; p = 0.002) and –0.30 (95% confidence interval –0.48 to –0.11; p = 0.002). Keratoconus progression in the study eye occurred in two patients (7%) randomised to corneal cross-linking compared with 12 (43%) patients randomised to standard care. The unadjusted odds ratio suggests that, on average, patients in the corneal cross-linking group had 90% (odds ratio 0.1, 95% confidence interval 0.02 to 0.48; p = 0.004) lower odds of experiencing progression than those receiving standard care. Quality-of-life outcomes were similar in both groups. No adverse events were attributable to corneal cross-linking. // Limitations: Measurements of K2 in those eyes with the most significant progression were in some cases indicated as suspect by corneal topography device software. // Conclusions: Corneal cross-linking arrests progression of keratoconus in the great majority of young patients. These data support a consideration of a change in practice, such that corneal cross-linking could be considered as first-line treatment in progressive disease. If the arrest of keratoconus progression induced by corneal cross-linking is sustained in longer follow-up, there may be particular benefit in avoiding the later requirement for contact lens wear or corneal transplantation. However, keratoconus does not continue to progress in all patients receiving standard care. For future work, the most important questions to be answered are whether or not (1) the arrest of keratoconus progression induced by corneal cross-linking is maintained in the long term and (2) the proportion of those receiving standard care who show significant progression increases with time

The programming of sequences of saccades

Saccadic eye movements move the high-resolution fovea to point at regions of interest. Saccades can only be generated serially (i.e., one at a time). However, what remains unclear is the extent to which saccades are programmed in parallel (i.e., a series of such moments can be planned together) and how far ahead such planning occurs. In the current experiment, we investigate this issue with a saccade contingent preview paradigm. Participants were asked to execute saccadic eye movements in response to seven small circles presented on a screen. The extent to which participants were given prior information about target locations was varied on a trial-by-trial basis: participants were aware of the location of the next target only, the next three, five, or all seven targets. The addition of new targets to the display was made during the saccade to the next target in the sequence. The overall time taken to complete the sequence was decreased as more targets were available up to all seven targets. This was a result of a reduction in the number of saccades being executed and a reduction in their saccade latencies. Surprisingly, these results suggest that, when faced with a demand to saccade to a large number of target locations, saccade preparation about all target locations is carried out in paralle