28 research outputs found

    Effect of Porocentesis Upon the Blood-Aqueous Barrier of Cynomolgus Monkeys

    Get PDF
    Anterior chamber paracentesis disrupts the blood aqueous barrier (BAB) of rabbits and nonhuman primates, but the magnitude and duration of breakdown in monkeys has not been clarified. We have studied anterior chamber paracentesis in cynomolgus monkeys as a potential model of postoperative BAB breakdown. The effect of a single paracentesis upon fluorescein sodium concentration in the anterior chamber after an intravenous injection was measured in 16 eyes of 8 animals. In an additional 10 eyes of 5 animals, aqueous humor was withdrawn for analysis 24 hours and one week following paracentesis. Anterior chamber fluorescein concentration was 57 ± 22 ng/ml (mean ± standard deviation) before paracentesis, rose to 81 ± 47 ng/ml 24 hrs after paracentesis, and was 60 ± 36 ng/ml at 72-96 hours. Twenty-four hours after paracentesis, total protein concentration was elevated, but ascorbic acid and transforming growth factor-jS levels were not. Paracentesis in monkeys has only a small and short lasting effect upon BAB integrity and is therefore unlikely to be a good model for assessing the effect of agents designed to stabilize the BAB. However, the short-lived effect of paracentesis may permit the repetitive collection of "primary aqueous" for physiologic and biochemical studies. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 33:165-171, 199

    Dependability of results in conference abstracts of randomized controlled trials in ophthalmology and author financial conflicts of interest as a factor associated with full publication.

    Get PDF
    BackgroundDiscrepancies between information in conference abstracts and full publications describing the same randomized controlled trial have been reported. The association between author conflicts of interest and the publication of randomized controlled trials is unclear. The objective of this study was to use randomized controlled trials in ophthalmology to evaluate (1) the agreement in the reported main outcome results by comparing abstracts and corresponding publications and (2) the association between the author conflicts of interest and publication of the results presented in the abstracts.MethodsWe considered abstracts describing results of randomized controlled trials presented at the 2001-2004 Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology conferences as eligible for our study. Through electronic searching and by emailing abstract authors, we identified the earliest publication (journal article) containing results of each abstract's main outcome through November 2013. We categorized the discordance between the main outcome results in the abstract and its paired publication as qualitative (a difference in the direction of the estimated effect) or as quantitative. We used the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology categories for conflicts of interest: financial interest, employee of business with interest, consultant to business with interest, inventor/developer with patent, and receiving ≥ 1 gift from industry in the past year. We calculated the relative risks (RRs) of publication associated with the categories of conflicts of interest for abstracts with results that were statistically significant, not statistically significant, or not reported.ResultsWe included 513 abstracts, 230 (44.8 %) of which reached publication. Among the 86 pairs with the same main outcome domain at the same time point, 47 pairs (54.7 %) had discordant results: qualitative discordance in 7 pairs and quantitative discordance in 40 pairs. Quantitative discordance was indicated as < 10, 10-20, > 20 %, and unclear in 14, 5, 14, and 7 pairs, respectively. First authors reporting of one or more conflicts of interest was associated with a greater likelihood of publication (RR = 1.31; 95 % CI = 1.04 to 1.64) and a shorter time-to-publication (log-rank p = 0.026). First author conflicts of interests that were associated with publication were financial support (RR = 1.50; 95 % CI = 1.19 to 1.90) and one or more gifts (RR = 1.42; 95 % CI = 1.05 to 1.92). The association between conflicts of interest and publication remained, irrespective of the statistical significance of the results.ConclusionsMore than half the abstract/publication pairs exhibited some amount of discordance in the main outcome results, calling into question the dependability of conference abstracts. Regardless of the main outcome results, the conflicts of interests of the abstract's first author were associated with publication

    Laser Trabeculoplasty for Open-Angle Glaucoma

    No full text
    Objective: To provide an evidence-based summary of the outcomes, repeatability, and safety of laser trabeculoplasty for open-angle glaucoma. Methods: A search of the peer-reviewed literature in the PubMed and the Cochrane Library databases was conducted in June 2008 and was last repeated in March 2010 with no date or language restrictions. The search yielded 637 unique citations, of which 145 were considered to be of possible clinical relevance for further review and were included in the evidence analysis. Results: Level I evidence indicates an acceptable long-term efficacy of initial argon laser trabeculoplasty for open-angle glaucoma compared with initial medical treatment. Among the remaining studies, level II evidence supports the efficacy of selective laser trabeculoplasty for lowering intraocular pressure for patients with open-angle glaucoma. Level III evidence supports the efficacy of repeat use of laser trabeculoplasty. Conclusions: Laser trabeculoplasty is successful in lowering intraocular pressure for patients with open-angle glaucoma. At this time, there is no literature establishing the superiority of any particular form of laser trabeculoplasty. The theories of action of laser trabeculoplasty are not elucidated fully. Further research into the differences among the lasers used in trabeculoplasty, the repeatability of the procedure, and techniques of treatment is necessary. Financial Disclosure(s): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references. Ophthalmology 2011;118:2296-2302 (C) 2011 by the American Academy of Ophthalmology

    Assessment of visual function in glaucoma: a report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology

    No full text
    To review the published literature to summarize and evaluate the effectiveness of visual function tests in diagnosing glaucoma and in monitoring progression. Literature searches of the PubMed and Cochrane Library databases were conducted last on May 7, 2010, and were restricted to citations published on or after January 1, 1994. The search yielded 1063 unique citations. The first author reviewed the titles and abstracts of these articles and selected 185 of possible clinical relevance for further review. The panel members reviewed the full text of these articles and determined that 85 met inclusion criteria. They conducted data abstraction of the 85 studies, and the panel methodologist assigned a level of evidence to each of the selected articles. One study was rated as level I evidence. The remaining articles were classified broadly as providing level II evidence. Studies deemed to provide level III evidence were not included in the assessment. Standard white-on-white automated perimetry remains the most commonly performed test for assessing the visual field, with the Swedish interactive threshold algorithm (SITA) largely replacing full-threshold testing strategies. Frequency-doubling technology and its refinement into Matrix perimetry, as well as short-wavelength automated perimetry, now available with SITA, have been evaluated extensively. Machine learning classifiers seem to be ready for incorporation into software to help distinguish glaucomatous from nonglaucomatous fields. Other technologies, such as multifocal visual-evoked potential and electroretinography, which were designed as objective measures of visual function, provide testing free of patient input, but issues prevent their adoption for glaucoma management. Advances in technology and analytic tools over the past decade have provided us with more rapid and varied ways of assessing visual function in glaucoma, but they have yet to produce definitive guidance on the diagnosis of glaucoma or its progression over time. Further research on an objective measure of visual function is needed
    corecore