VISION 2020: The Right to Sight in 7 Years?

Editorial/No abstrac

Avoidable Waste in Ophthalmic Epidemiology: A Review of Blindness Prevalence Surveys in Low and Middle Income Countries 2000–2014

Purpose:- Sources of avoidable waste in ophthalmic epidemiology include duplication of effort, and survey reports remaining unpublished, gaining publication after a long delay, or being incomplete or of poor quality. The aim of this review was to assess these sources of avoidable waste by examining blindness prevalence surveys undertaken in low and middle income countries (LMICs) between 2000 and 2014. Methods:- On December 1 2016 we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science databases for cross-sectional blindness prevalence surveys undertaken in LMICs between 2000–2014. All surveys listed on the Rapid Assessment of Avoidable Blindness (RAAB) Repository website (“the Repository”) were also considered. For each survey we assessed i) availability of scientific publication, survey report, summary results tables and/or datasets; ii) time to publication from year of survey completion and journal attributes; iii) extent of blindness information reported; and iv) rigour when information was available from two sources (i.e. whether it matched). Results:- Of the 279 included surveys (from 68 countries) 186 (67%) used RAAB methodology; 146 (52%) were published in a scientific journal, 57 (20%) were published in a journal and on the Repository, and 76 (27%) were on the Repository only (8% had tables; 19% had no information available beyond registration). Datasets were available for 50 RAABs (18% of included surveys). Time to publication ranged from <1–11 years (mean, standard deviation 2.8±1.8 years). The extent of blindness information reported within studies varied (e.g. presenting and best-corrected, unilateral and bilateral); those with both a published report and Repository tables were most complete. For surveys published and with RAAB tables available, discrepancies were found in reporting of participant numbers (14% of studies) and blindness prevalence (15%). Conclusion:- Strategies are needed to improve the availability, consistency and quality of information reported from blindness prevalence surveys, and hence reduce avoidable waste

COVID-19 e o olho: quanto sabemos realmente? Uma revisão das melhores evidências

To identify and classify available information regarding COVID-19 and eye care according to the level of evidence, within four main topics of interest: evidence of the virus in tears and the ocular surface, infection via the conjunctival route, ocular manifestations, and best practice recommendations. A structured review was conducted in PubMed, ScienceDirect, LILACS, SciELO, the Cochrane Library and Google Scholar on COVID-19 and ophthalmology. The Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine 2011 Levels of Evidence worksheet was used for quality assessments. 1018 items were identified in the search; 26 records were included in the qualitative synthesis, which encompassed 6 literature reviews, 10 case series or cross-sectional studies, 4 case reports, and 6 intervention descriptions. Seventeen out of 26 records (65%) were categorized as level 5 within the Oxford CBME methodology grading system, the rest were level 4. The evidence generated on COVID-19 and ophthalmology to date is limited, although this is understandable given the circumstances. Both the possible presence of viral particles in tears and conjunctiva, and the potential for conjunctival transmission remain controversial. Ocular manifestations are not frequent and could resemble viral infection of the ocular surface. Most recommendations are based on the strategies implemented by Asian countries during previous coronavirus outbreaks. There is a need for substantive studies evaluating these strategies in the setting of SARS-CoV-2. In the meantime, plans for applying these measures must be implemented with caution, taking into account the context of each individual country, and undergo regular evaluation.Identificar e classificar as informações disponíveis sobre o COVID-19 e o tratamento oftalmológico de acordo com o nível de evidência, dentro de quatro tópicos principais de interesse: evidência do vírus nas lágrimas e na superfície ocular, infecção pela via conjuntival, manifestações oculares e recomendações de melhores práticas. Foi realizada uma revisão estruturada no PubMed, ScienceDirect, LILACS, SciELO, Biblioteca Cochrane e Google Scholar no COVID-19 e oftalmologia. A planilha de Níveis de Evidência 2011 do Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine 2011 foi usada para avaliações de qualidade. Mil e dezoito itens foram identificados na busca; Foram incluídos 26 registros na síntese qualitativa, que incluiu 6 revisões de literatura, 10 séries de casos ou estudos transversais, 4 relatos de casos e 6 descrições de intervenções. Dezessete dos 26 registros (65%) foram classificados como nível 5 no sistema de classificação da metodologia Oxford CBME, o restante foi no nível 4. As evidências geradas no COVID-19 e na oftalmologia até o momento são limitadas, embora isso seja compreensível dadas as circunstâncias. Tanto a possível presença de partículas virais em lágrimas e conjuntiva quanto o potencial de transmissão conjuntival permanecem controversos. As manifestações oculares não são frequentes e podem se assemelhar a infecção viral da superfície ocular. A maioria das recomendações baseia-se nas estratégias implementadas pelos países asiáticos durante surtos anteriores de coronavírus. Há necessidade de estudos aprofundados avaliando essas estratégias no cenário da SARS-CoV-2. Enquanto isso, os planos para a aplicação dessas medidas devem ser implementados com cautela, levando em consideração o contexto de cada país e submetidos a auditorias periódicas

Rapid assessment of visual impairment (RAVI) in marine fishing communities in South India - study protocol and main findings

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Reliable data are a pre-requisite for planning eye care services. Though conventional cross sectional studies provide reliable information, they are resource intensive. A novel rapid assessment method was used to investigate the prevalence and causes of visual impairment and presbyopia in subjects aged 40 years and older. This paper describes the detailed methodology and study procedures of Rapid Assessment of Visual Impairment (RAVI) project.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A population-based cross-sectional study was conducted using cluster random sampling in the coastal region of Prakasam district of Andhra Pradesh in India, predominantly inhabited by fishing communities. Unaided, aided and pinhole visual acuity (VA) was assessed using a Snellen chart at a distance of 6 meters. The VA was re-assessed using a pinhole, if VA was < 6/12 in either eye. Near vision was assessed using N notation chart binocularly. Visual impairment was defined as presenting VA < 6/18 in the better eye. Presbyopia is defined as binocular near vision worse than N8 in subjects with binocular distance VA of 6/18 or better.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The data collection was completed in <12 weeks using two teams each consisting of one paramedical ophthalmic personnel and two community eye health workers. The prevalence of visual impairment was 30% (95% CI, 27.6-32.2). This included 111 (7.1%; 95% CI, 5.8-8.4) individuals with blindness. Cataract was the leading cause of visual impairment followed by uncorrected refractive errors. The prevalence of blindness according to WHO definition (presenting VA < 3/60 in the better eye) was 2.7% (95% CI, 1.9-3.5).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>There is a high prevalence of visual impairment in marine fishing communities in Prakasam district in India. The data from this rapid assessment survey can now be used as a baseline to start eye care services in this region. The rapid assessment methodology (RAVI) reported in this paper is robust, quick and has the potential to be replicated in other areas.</p

Variation of cataract surgery costs in four different graded providers of China

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>China has the largest population of cataract patients in the world. However, the cataract surgery rate per million remains low in China. We carried out a survey on costs of cataract surgery from four different graded providers in China and analyzed differences in cost among these clinics.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>1,189 patients were recruited for the study in four eye clinics, located in two provinces, Guangdong province in southern China and Hubei province in central China. The average cost of each cataract surgery episode was calculated including cost of intraocular lens, cost of drugs and facility cost. We also collected information on reimbursement and disposable annual income of local residents.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Mean total cost per cataract intervention of four different providers varied considerably, ranging from US$1,293 in Union Hospital to US$ 536 in Jingshan County Hospital. In all providers, except for Jingshan County Hospital, the cost exceeded annual disposable income of local rural residents. As to the proportion of patients with reimbursement, the figure for Union Hospital was only 36%, while for other three clinics it was more than 60%. There was a significant difference between mean reimbursement ratios, with the highest ratio in Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center being 71%.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Significant differences in costs of cataract surgery were found among the 4 different graded providers. A part of the cost was borne by patients. Proportion of patients with reimbursement and mean reimbursement ratios were higher in economically developed regions than in economically developing regions. Much more financial support should be directed into the rural New Cooperative Medical Scheme to raise the reimbursement ratio in rural China.</p

Assessment of cataract surgical outcomes in settings where follow-up is poor: PRECOG, a multicentre observational study

Background Poor follow-up after cataract surgery in developing countries makes assessment of operative quality uncertain. We aimed to assess two strategies to measure visual outcome: recording the visual acuity of all patients 3 or fewer days postoperatively (early postoperative assessment), and recording that of only those patients who returned for the fi nal follow-up examination after 40 or more days without additional prompting. Methods Each of 40 centres in ten countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America recruited 40–120 consecutive surgical cataract patients. Operative-eye best-corrected visual acuity and uncorrected visual acuity were recorded before surgery, 3 or fewer days postoperatively, and 40 or more days postoperatively. Clinics logged whether each patient had returned for the fi nal follow-up examination without additional prompting, had to be actively encouraged to return, or had to be examined at home. Visual outcome for each centre was defi ned as the proportion of patients with uncorrected visual acuity of 6/18 or better minus the proportion with uncorrected visual acuity of 6/60 or worse, and was calculated for each participating hospital with results from the early assessment of all patients and the late assessment of only those returning unprompted, with results from the fi nal follow-up assessment for all patients used as the standard. Findings Of 3708 participants, 3441 (93%) had fi nal follow-up vision data recorded 40 or more days after surgery, 1831 of whom (51% of the 3581 total participants for whom mode of follow-up was recorded) had returned to the clinic without additional prompting. Visual outcome by hospital from early postoperative and fi nal follow-up assessment for all patients were highly correlated (Spearman’s rs=0·74, p<0·0001). Visual outcome from fi nal followup assessment for all patients and for only those who returned without additional prompting were also highly correlated (rs=0·86, p<0·0001), even for the 17 hospitals with unprompted return rates of less than 50% (rs=0·71, p=0·002). When we divided hospitals into top 25%, middle 50%, and bottom 25% by visual outcome, classifi cation based on fi nal follow-up assessment for all patients was the same as that based on early postoperative assessment for 27 (68%) of 40 centres, and the same as that based on data from patients who returned without additional prompting in 31 (84%) of 37 centres. Use of glasses to optimise vision at the time of the early and late examinations did not further improve the correlations. Interpretation Early vision assessment for all patients and follow-up assessment only for patients who return to the clinic without prompting are valid measures of operative quality in settings where follow-up is poor