Clinical characteristics of cyclodeviation

PURPOSE: To retrospectively evaluate the incidence of cyclodeviation among patients with diplopia and analyse the causative diseases and clinical manifestations of cyclodeviation. METHODS: The medical records of 266 consecutive patients of 15 years of age or older presenting with diplopia, who had undergone the Lancaster red-green test (LRGT) from January 2001 to December 2002, were retrospectively reviewed. The presence of cyclodeviation on LRGT, predisposing conditions, causative diseases, and clinical manifestations of cyclotropia were analysed. Cyclodeviation on the LRGT were compared with those from the Maddox double-rod test (MDRT) and fundus photography. RESULTS: A total of 63 (24%) out of 266 patients exhibited cyclodeviation on LRGT. Eight out of 63 patients with cyclodeviation on the LRGT complained of torsional diplopia. Superior oblique palsy (SOP) was the most common causative disease (42 patients), followed by skew deviation (six) and thyroid orbitopathy (three). Excyclodeviation was found in 57 patients and incyclodeviation in four patients on the LRGT. The spontaneous recovery rate was 83% in patients of vascular origin and 17% of traumatic origin. Cyclodeviation with the MDRT and fundus photography showed good correlation with those obtained from the LRGT. There was no association of the amount of cyclotropia with the presence of torsional diplopia as well as with its recovery. CONCLUSION: In spite of the rare complaint of torsional diplopia, 24% of the patients with diplopia showed cyclodeviation on the LRGT. SOP was the most common causative disease. Most of the patients with cyclodeviation of a vascular origin showed spontaneous improvement

Patients' knowledge and perception on optic neuritis management before and after an information session

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Patients' understanding of their condition affect the choice of treatment. The aim of this study is to evaluate patients' understanding and treatment preferences before and after an information session on the treatment of acute optic neuritis.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Participants were asked to complete a questionnaire consisting of 14 questions before and after an information session presented by a neuro-ophthalmologist. The information session highlighted the treatment options and the treatment effects based on the Optic Neuritis Treatment Trial in plain patient language. The information session stressed the finding that high dose intravenous steroid therapy accelerated visual recovery but does not change final vision and that treatment with oral prednisone alone resulted in a higher incidence of recurrent optic neuritis.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Before the information session, 23 (85%) participants knew that there was treatment available for ON and this increased to 27 (100%) after the information session. There were no significantly change in patients knowledge of symptoms of ON and purpose of treatment before and after the information session. Before the information session, 4 (14%) respondents reported they would like to be treated by oral steroid alone in the event of an optic neuritis and 5 (19%) did not respond. After the education session, only 1 patient (4%) indicated they would undergo treatment with oral steroid alone but 25 (92%) indicated they would undergo treatment with intravenous steroid treatment, alone or in combination with oral treatment. Results indicated that there were significant differences in the numbers of participants selecting that they would undergo treatment with a steroid injection (n = 22, p = 0.016).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>In this study, patients have shown good understanding of the symptoms and signs of optic neuritis. The finding that significant increases in the likelihood of patients engaging in best practice can be achieved with an information session is very important. This suggests that patient knowledge of available treatments and outcomes can play an important role in implementing and adopting guideline recommendations.</p

Outcomes research in the development and evaluation of practice guidelines

BACKGROUND: Practice guidelines have been developed in response to the observation that variations exist in clinical medicine that are not related to variations in the clinical presentation and severity of the disease. Despite their widespread use, however, practice guideline evaluation lacks a rigorous scientific methodology to support its development and application. DISCUSSION: Firstly, we review the major epidemiological foundations of practice guideline development. Secondly, we propose a chronic disease epidemiological model in which practice patterns are viewed as the exposure and outcomes of interest such as quality or cost are viewed as the disease. Sources of selection, information, confounding and temporal trend bias are identified and discussed. SUMMARY: The proposed methodological framework for outcomes research to evaluate practice guidelines reflects the selection, information and confounding biases inherent in its observational nature which must be accounted for in both the design and the analysis phases of any outcomes research study