The Use of Preoperative Prophylactic Systemic Antibiotics for the Prevention of Endopthalmitis in Open Globe Injuries:A Meta-Analysis

Topic:This study reports the effect of systemic prophylactic antibiotics (and their route) on the risk of endophthalmitis after open globe injury. Clinical relevance:Endophthalmitis is a major complication of open globe injury, it can lead to rapid sight loss in the affected eye. The administration of systemic antibiotic prophylaxis is common practice in some health care systems, although there is no consensus on their use. PubMed, CENTRAL, Web of Science, CINAHL and Embase were searched. This was completed 6th July 2021 and updated 10th Dec 2022. We included randomised and non-randomised prospective studies which reported the rate of post-open globe injury endophthalmitis, when systemic pre-operative antibiotic prophylaxis (via the oral or intravenous route) was given. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and ROBINS-I tool were used for assessing the risk of bias. Where meta-analysis was performed results were reported as odds ratio. PROSPERO registration: CRD42021271271. Three studies were included. One prospective observational study compared outcomes of patients who had received systemic or no systemic pre-operative antibiotics. The endophthalmitis rates reported were 3.75% and 4.91% in the systemic and no systemic pre-operative antibiotics groups, a non-significant difference (p = 0.68). Two randomised controlled trials were included (1,555 patients). The rates of endophthalmitis were 17 events in 751 patients (2.26%) and 17 events in 804 patients (2.11%) in the oral antibiotics and intravenous (+/- oral) antibiotics groups, respectively. Meta-analysis demonstrated no significant differences between groups (OR 1.07 [95% confidence interval 0.54 – 2.12]). The incidences of endophthalmitis after open globe injury were low with and without systemic antibiotic prophylaxis, although high risk cases were excluded in the included studies. When antibiotic prophylaxis is considered, there is moderate evidence that oral antibiotic administration is non-inferior to intravenous

The Risk of Sympathetic Ophthalmia Associated with Open-Globe Injury Management Strategies:A Meta-analysis

Topic: Sympathetic ophthalmia (SO) is a sight-threatening granulomatous panuveitis caused by a sensitizing event. Primary enucleation or primary evisceration, versus primary repair, as a risk management strategy after open-globe injury (OGI) remains controversial.Clinical Relevance: This systematic review was conducted to report the incidence of SO after primary repair compared with that of after primary enucleation or primary evisceration. This enabled the reporting of an estimated number needed to treat.Methods: Five journal databases were searched. This review was registered with International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (identifier, CRD42021262616). Searches were carried out on June 29, 2021, and were updated on December 10, 2022. Prospective or retrospective studies that reported outcomes (including SO or lack of SO) in a patient population who underwent either primary repair and primary enucleation or primary evisceration were included. A systematic review and meta-analysis were carried out in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. Random effects modelling was used to estimate pooled SO rates and absolute risk reduction (ARR).Results: Eight studies reporting SO as an outcome were included in total. The included studies contained 7500 patients and 7635 OGIs. In total, 7620 OGIs met the criteria for inclusion in this analysis; SO developed in 21 patients with OGI. When all included studies were pooled, the estimated SO rate was 0.12% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.00%–0.25%) after OGI. Of 779 patients who underwent primary enucleation or primary evisceration, no SO cases were reported, resulting in a pooled SO estimate of 0.05% (95% CI, 0.00%–0.21%). For primary repair, the pooled estimate of SO rate was 0.15% (95% CI, 0.00%–0.33%). The ARR using a random effects model was −0.0010 (in favour of eye removal; 95% CI, −0.0031 [in favor of eye removal] to 0.0011 [in favor of primary repair]). Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations analysis highlighted a low certainty of evidence because the included studies were observational, and a risk of bias resulted from missing data.Discussion: Based on the available data, no evidence exists that primary enucleation or primary evisceration reduce the risk of secondary SO.Financial Disclosure(s): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article

A-dependence of phi-meson production in p+A collisions

A systematic analysis of the A-dependence of phi-meson production in proton-nucleus collisions is presented. We apply different formalisms for the evaluation of the phi-meson distortion in nuclei and discuss the theoretical uncertainties of the data analysis. The corresponding results are compared to theoretical predictions. We also discuss the interpretation of the extracted results with respect to different observables and provide relations between frequently used definitions. The perspectives of future experiments are evaluated and estimates based on our systematical study are given.Comment: 14 pages, 8 figure

Polygenic risk scores for prediction of breast cancer risk in women of African ancestry: A cross-ancestry approach

Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) are useful for predicting breast cancer risk, but the prediction accuracy of existing PRSs in women of African ancestry (AA) remains relatively low. We aim to develop optimal PRSs for the prediction of overall and estrogen receptor (ER) subtype-specific breast cancer risk in AA women. The AA dataset comprised 9235 cases and 10 184 controls from four genome-wide association study (GWAS) consortia and a GWAS study in Ghana. We randomly divided samples into training and validation sets. We built PRSs using individual-level AA data by a forward stepwise logistic regression and then developed joint PRSs that combined (1) the PRSs built in the AA training dataset and (2) a 313-variant PRS previously developed in women of European ancestry. PRSs were evaluated in the AA validation set. For overall breast cancer, the odds ratio per standard deviation of the joint PRS in the validation set was 1.34 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.27-1.42] with the area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.581. Compared with women with average risk (40th-60th PRS percentile), women in the top decile of the PRS had a 1.98-fold increased risk (95% CI: 1.63-2.39). For PRSs of ER-positive and ER-negative breast cancer, the AUCs were 0.608 and 0.576, respectively. Compared with existing methods, the proposed joint PRSs can improve prediction of breast cancer risk in AA women