Surgical removal of eyes in a tertiary institution in North eastern Nigeria

Background Surgical eye removal is performed for various end-stage eye diseases to provide adequate comfort, replace volume and give good functional and cosmetic appearance. The pattern of eye removal is unknown for North Eastern Nigeria. Objective To determine the indications for eye removal in the study community. Method Records of all the patients whose eyes were removed between January 2002 and December 2008 were reviewed retrospectively. Age, sex, diagnosis and type of surgery were recorded. Results A total of 67 eyes were removed during the period consisting of 46 males (68.7%). Mean age was 29.5 years (range 4 months to 90 years). Indications for surgery were trauma, 26 (38.8%), infection, 21 (31.3%), anterior staphyloma, 14 (20.9%), tumor 4, (6.0%) and painful blind eye, 2 (3.0%). Evisceration was performed in 55 (82.1%), enucleation, 11 (16.4%) and exenteration, 1 (1.5%) patient. In children (n = 28), the indications were trauma and anterior staphyloma in 10 patients (35.7%) each, tumor in 4 (14.3%), infection in 3 (10.7%) and painful blind eye (mooren's ulcer) in 1 (3.6%) of the children respectively. In adults (n = 39), indications were infections, 18 (46.2%), trauma, 16 (41.0%), anterior staphyloma, 4 (10.3%) and painful blind eye due to advanced glaucoma, 1 (2.6%). Conclusion Trauma, infections, and anterior staphyloma were the major indications for eye removal. Most of the indications were avoidable

Evaluating assumptions of scales for subjective assessment of thermal environments – Do laypersons perceive them the way, we researchers believe?

People's subjective response to any thermal environment is commonly investigated by using rating scales describing the degree of thermal sensation, comfort, and acceptability. Subsequent analyses of results collected in this way rely on the assumption that specific distances between verbal anchors placed on the scale exist and that relationships between verbal anchors from different dimensions that are assessed (e.g. thermal sensation and comfort) do not change. Another inherent assumption is that such scales are independent of the context in which they are used (climate zone, season, etc.). Despite their use worldwide, there is indication that contextual differences influence the way the scales are perceived and therefore question the reliability of the scales’ interpretation. To address this issue, a large international collaborative questionnaire study was conducted in 26 countries, using 21 different languages, which led to a dataset of 8225 questionnaires. Results, analysed by means of robust statistical techniques, revealed that only a subset of the responses are in accordance with the mentioned assumptions. Significant differences appeared between groups of participants in their perception of the scales, both in relation to distances of the anchors and relationships between scales. It was also found that respondents’ interpretations of scales changed with contextual factors, such as climate, season, and language. These findings highlight the need to carefully consider context-dependent factors in interpreting and reporting results from thermal comfort studies or post-occupancy evaluations, as well as to revisit the use of rating scales and the analysis methods used in thermal comfort studies to improve their reliability

The Scales Project, a cross-national dataset on the interpretation of thermal perception scales

Thermal discomfort is one of the main triggers for occupants' interactions with components of the built environment such as adjustments of thermostats and/or opening windows and strongly related to the energy use in buildings. Understanding causes for thermal (dis-)comfort is crucial for design and operation of any type of building. The assessment of human thermal perception through rating scales, for example in post-occupancy studies, has been applied for several decades; however, long-existing assumptions related to these rating scales had been questioned by several researchers. The aim of this study was to gain deeper knowledge on contextual influences on the interpretation of thermal perception scales and their verbal anchors by survey participants. A questionnaire was designed and consequently applied in 21 language versions. These surveys were conducted in 57 cities in 30 countries resulting in a dataset containing responses from 8225 participants. The database offers potential for further analysis in the areas of building design and operation, psycho-physical relationships between human perception and the built environment, and linguistic analyses

Evaluating assumptions of scales for subjective assessment of thermal environments – Do laypersons perceive them the way, we researchers believe?

People's subjective response to any thermal environment is commonly investigated by using rating scales describing the degree of thermal sensation, comfort, and acceptability. Subsequent analyses of results collected in this way rely on the assumption that specific distances between verbal anchors placed on the scale exist and that relationships between verbal anchors from different dimensions that are assessed (e.g. thermal sensation and comfort) do not change. Another inherent assumption is that such scales are independent of the context in which they are used (climate zone, season, etc.). Despite their use worldwide, there is indication that contextual differences influence the way the scales are perceived and therefore question the reliability of the scales’ interpretation. To address this issue, a large international collaborative questionnaire study was conducted in 26 countries, using 21 different languages, which led to a dataset of 8225 questionnaires. Results, analysed by means of robust statistical techniques, revealed that only a subset of the responses are in accordance with the mentioned assumptions. Significant differences appeared between groups of participants in their perception of the scales, both in relation to distances of the anchors and relationships between scales. It was also found that respondents’ interpretations of scales changed with contextual factors, such as climate, season, and language. These findings highlight the need to carefully consider context-dependent factors in interpreting and reporting results from thermal comfort studies or post-occupancy evaluations, as well as to revisit the use of rating scales and the analysis methods used in thermal comfort studies to improve their reliability