Grand Challenges in global eye health: a global prioritisation process using Delphi method

Background: We undertook a Grand Challenges in Global Eye Health prioritisation exercise to identify the key issues that must be addressed to improve eye health in the context of an ageing population, to eliminate persistent inequities in health-care access, and to mitigate widespread resource limitations. Methods: Drawing on methods used in previous Grand Challenges studies, we used a multi-step recruitment strategy to assemble a diverse panel of individuals from a range of disciplines relevant to global eye health from all regions globally to participate in a three-round, online, Delphi-like, prioritisation process to nominate and rank challenges in global eye health. Through this process, we developed both global and regional priority lists. Findings: Between Sept 1 and Dec 12, 2019, 470 individuals complete round 1 of the process, of whom 336 completed all three rounds (round 2 between Feb 26 and March 18, 2020, and round 3 between April 2 and April 25, 2020) 156 (46%) of 336 were women, 180 (54%) were men. The proportion of participants who worked in each region ranged from 104 (31%) in sub-Saharan Africa to 21 (6%) in central Europe, eastern Europe, and in central Asia. Of 85 unique challenges identified after round 1, 16 challenges were prioritised at the global level; six focused on detection and treatment of conditions (cataract, refractive error, glaucoma, diabetic retinopathy, services for children and screening for early detection), two focused on addressing shortages in human resource capacity, five on other health service and policy factors (including strengthening policies, integration, health information systems, and budget allocation), and three on improving access to care and promoting equity. Interpretation: This list of Grand Challenges serves as a starting point for immediate action by funders to guide investment in research and innovation in eye health. It challenges researchers, clinicians, and policy makers to build collaborations to address specific challenges. Funding: The Queen Elizabeth Diamond Jubilee Trust, Moorfields Eye Charity, National Institute for Health Research Moorfields Biomedical Research Centre, Wellcome Trust, Sightsavers, The Fred Hollows Foundation, The Seva Foundation, British Council for the Prevention of Blindness, and Christian Blind Mission. Translations: For the French, Spanish, Chinese, Portuguese, Arabic and Persian translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section

Pooled analysis of WHO Surgical Safety Checklist use and mortality after emergency laparotomy

Background The World Health Organization (WHO) Surgical Safety Checklist has fostered safe practice for 10 years, yet its place in emergency surgery has not been assessed on a global scale. The aim of this study was to evaluate reported checklist use in emergency settings and examine the relationship with perioperative mortality in patients who had emergency laparotomy. Methods In two multinational cohort studies, adults undergoing emergency laparotomy were compared with those having elective gastrointestinal surgery. Relationships between reported checklist use and mortality were determined using multivariable logistic regression and bootstrapped simulation. Results Of 12 296 patients included from 76 countries, 4843 underwent emergency laparotomy. After adjusting for patient and disease factors, checklist use before emergency laparotomy was more common in countries with a high Human Development Index (HDI) (2455 of 2741, 89.6 per cent) compared with that in countries with a middle (753 of 1242, 60.6 per cent; odds ratio (OR) 0.17, 95 per cent c.i. 0.14 to 0.21, P <0001) or low (363 of 860, 422 per cent; OR 008, 007 to 010, P <0.001) HDI. Checklist use was less common in elective surgery than for emergency laparotomy in high-HDI countries (risk difference -94 (95 per cent c.i. -11.9 to -6.9) per cent; P <0001), but the relationship was reversed in low-HDI countries (+121 (+7.0 to +173) per cent; P <0001). In multivariable models, checklist use was associated with a lower 30-day perioperative mortality (OR 0.60, 0.50 to 073; P <0.001). The greatest absolute benefit was seen for emergency surgery in low- and middle-HDI countries. Conclusion Checklist use in emergency laparotomy was associated with a significantly lower perioperative mortality rate. Checklist use in low-HDI countries was half that in high-HDI countries.Peer reviewe

Prevalence and causes of vision loss in Latin America and the Caribbean in 2015: magnitude, temporal trends and projections

Objective To estimate the prevalence and causes of blindness and vision impairment for distance and near in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) in 2015 and to forecast trends to 2020. Methods A meta-analysis from a global systematic review of 283 cross-sectional, population-representative studies from published and unpublished sources from 1980 to 2014 in the Global Vision Database included 17 published and 6 unpublished studies from LAC. Results In 2015, across LAC, age-standardised prevalence was 0.38% in all ages and 1.56% in those over age 50 for blindness; 2.06% in all ages and 7.86% in those over age 50 for moderate and severe vision impairment (MSVI); 1.89% in all ages and 6.93% in those over age 50 for mild vision impairment and 39.59% in all ages and 45.27% in those over 50 for near vision impairment (NVI). In 2015, 117.86 million persons were vision impaired; of those 2.34 million blind, 12.46 million with MSVI, 11.34 million mildly impaired and 91.72 million had NVI. Cataract is the most common cause of blindness. Undercorrected refractive-error is the most common cause of vision impairment. Conclusions These prevalence estimates indicate that one in five persons across LAC had some degree of vision loss in 2015. We predict that from 2015 to 2020, the absolute numbers of persons with vision loss will increase by 12% to 132.33 million, while the all-age age-standardised prevalence will decrease for blindness by 15% and for other distance vision impairment by 8%. All countries need epidemiologic research to establish accurate national estimates and trends. Universal eye health services must be included in universal health coverage reforms to address disparities, fragmentation and segmentation of healthcar