Blood pressure control for diabetic retinopathy.

BACKGROUND: Diabetic retinopathy is a common complication of diabetes and a leading cause of visual impairment and blindness. Research has established the importance of blood glucose control to prevent development and progression of the ocular complications of diabetes. Concurrent blood pressure control has been advocated for this purpose, but individual studies have reported varying conclusions regarding the effects of this intervention. OBJECTIVES: To summarize the existing evidence regarding the effect of interventions to control blood pressure levels among diabetics on incidence and progression of diabetic retinopathy, preservation of visual acuity, adverse events, quality of life, and costs. SEARCH METHODS: We searched several electronic databases, including CENTRAL, and trial registries. We last searched the electronic databases on 3 September 2021. We also reviewed the reference lists of review articles and trial reports selected for inclusion. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which either type 1 or type 2 diabetic participants, with or without hypertension, were assigned randomly to more intense versus less intense blood pressure control; to blood pressure control versus usual care or no intervention on blood pressure (placebo); or to one class of antihypertensive medication versus another or placebo. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Pairs of review authors independently reviewed the titles and abstracts of records identified by the electronic and manual searches and the full-text reports of any records identified as potentially relevant. The included trials were independently assessed for risk of bias with respect to outcomes reported in this review. MAIN RESULTS: We included 29 RCTs conducted in North America, Europe, Australia, Asia, Africa, and the Middle East that had enrolled a total of 4620 type 1 and 22,565 type 2 diabetic participants (sample sizes from 16 to 4477 participants). In all 7 RCTs for normotensive type 1 diabetic participants, 8 of 12 RCTs with normotensive type 2 diabetic participants, and 5 of 10 RCTs with hypertensive type 2 diabetic participants, one group was assigned to one or more antihypertensive agents and the control group to placebo. In the remaining 4 RCTs for normotensive participants with type 2 diabetes and 5 RCTs for hypertensive type 2 diabetic participants, methods of intense blood pressure control were compared to usual care. Eight trials were sponsored entirely and 10 trials partially by pharmaceutical companies; nine studies received support from other sources; and two studies did not report funding source. Study designs, populations, interventions, lengths of follow-up (range less than one year to nine years), and blood pressure targets varied among the included trials. For primary review outcomes after five years of treatment and follow-up, one of the seven trials for type 1 diabetics reported incidence of retinopathy and one trial reported progression of retinopathy; one trial reported a combined outcome of incidence and progression (as defined by study authors). Among normotensive type 2 diabetics, four of 12 trials reported incidence of diabetic retinopathy and two trials reported progression of retinopathy; two trials reported combined incidence and progression. Among hypertensive type 2 diabetics, six of the 10 trials reported incidence of diabetic retinopathy and two trials reported progression of retinopathy; five of the 10 trials reported combined incidence and progression. The evidence supports an overall benefit of more intensive blood pressure intervention for five-year incidence of diabetic retinopathy (11 studies; 4940 participants; risk ratio (RR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 0.92; I2 = 15%; moderate certainty evidence) and the combined outcome of incidence and progression (8 studies; 6212 participants; RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.89; I2 = 42%; low certainty evidence). The available evidence did not support a benefit regarding five-year progression of diabetic retinopathy (5 studies; 5144 participants; RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.12; I2 = 57%; moderate certainty evidence), incidence of proliferative diabetic retinopathy, clinically significant macular edema, or vitreous hemorrhage (9 studies; 8237 participants; RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.04; I2 = 31%; low certainty evidence), or loss of 3 or more lines on a visual acuity chart with a logMAR scale (2 studies; 2326 participants; RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.08; I2 = 90%; very low certainty evidence). Hypertensive type 2 diabetic participants realized more benefit from intense blood pressure control for three of the four outcomes concerning incidence and progression of diabetic retinopathy. The adverse event reported most often (13 of 29 trials) was death, yielding an estimated RR 0.87 (95% CI 0.76 to 1.00; 13 studies; 13,979 participants; I2 = 0%; moderate certainty evidence). Hypotension was reported in two trials, with an RR of 2.04 (95% CI 1.63 to 2.55; 2 studies; 3323 participants; I2 = 37%; low certainty evidence), indicating an excess of hypotensive events among participants assigned to more intervention on blood pressure. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Hypertension is a well-known risk factor for several chronic conditions for which lowering blood pressure has proven to be beneficial. The available evidence supports a modest beneficial effect of intervention to reduce blood pressure with respect to preventing diabetic retinopathy for up to five years, particularly for hypertensive type 2 diabetics. However, there was a paucity of evidence to support such intervention to slow progression of diabetic retinopathy or to affect other outcomes considered in this review among normotensive diabetics. This weakens any conclusion regarding an overall benefit of intervening on blood pressure in diabetic patients without hypertension for the sole purpose of preventing diabetic retinopathy or avoiding the need for treatment for advanced stages of diabetic retinopathy.

Effect of pre-operative warm-up on trainee intraoperative performance during robot-assisted hysterectomy: a randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The objective was to study the effect of immediate pre-operative warm-up using virtual reality simulation on intraoperative robot-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy (RALH) performance by gynecology trainees (residents and fellows). METHODS: We randomized the first, non-emergent RALH of the day that involved trainees warming up or not warming up. For cases assigned to warm-up, trainees performed a set of exercises on the da Vinci Skills Simulator immediately before the procedure. The supervising attending surgeon, who was not informed whether or not the trainee was assigned to warm-up, assessed the trainee's performance using the Objective Structured Assessment for Technical Skill (OSATS) and the Global Evaluative Assessment of Robotic Skills (GEARS) immediately after each surgery. RESULTS: We randomized 66 cases and analyzed 58 cases (30 warm-up, 28 no warm-up), which involved 21 trainees. Attending surgeons rated trainees similarly irrespective of warm-up randomization with mean (SD) OSATS composite scores of 22.6 (4.3; warm-up) vs 21.8 (3.4; no warm-up) and mean GEARS composite scores of 19.2 (3.8; warm-up) vs 18.8 (3.1; no warm-up). The difference in composite scores between warm-up and no warm-up was 0.34 (95% CI: -1.44, 2.13), and 0.34 (95% CI: -1.22, 1.90) for OSATS and GEARS respectively. Also, we did not observe any significant differences in each of the component/subscale scores within OSATS and GEARS between cases assigned to warm-up and no warm-up. CONCLUSION: Performing a brief virtual reality-based warm-up before RALH did not significantly improve the intraoperative performance of the trainees.

Virtual Reality Simulation Has Weak Correlation with Overall Trainee Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Hysterectomy Performance.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Both simulator practice and intraoperative performance serve to inform surgical trainee training, but the skill transfer from simulation to the intraoperative setting remains unclear. This study evaluates the correlation between trainee performance on virtual reality simulation and (1) overall intraoperative performance during robotic-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy (RALH) procedures and (2) suturing performance during vaginal cuff closure portion of the case. DESIGN: Retrospective subgroup analysis of randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Academic hospital. PATIENTS: Patients with RALH (N = 29). INTERVENTIONS: Gynecological trainees (N = 21) performed simulation tasks using the da Vinci skills simulator on the day of surgery before performing RALH. Attending surgeons assessed participants' intraoperative performance using Global Evaluative Assessment of Robotic Skills (GEARS). Performance of the vaginal cuff closure step was subsequently assessed using GEARS scoring of anonymized videos. Spearman's correlation was used to quantify the relationship between simulation and intraoperative performances. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Trainees achieved a median intraoperative GEARS score of 18.5/30 (interquartile range: 17-22) and a median total simulator score of 84.4/100 (interquartile range: 78.1-87.5). More advanced residents exhibited worse overall simulator performance (median score 86.6/100 compared with 78.8/100, p = .03) and similar intraoperative GEARS scores during overall RALH and vaginal cuff closure compared with less experienced trainees. Total simulation performance score was negatively correlated with GEARS Bimanual Dexterity (ρ = -0.46, p = .02) and Force Sensitivity subscores (ρ = -0.39, p = .05). There was no correlation between total GEARS intraoperative vaginal cuff closure scores and overall simulation performances; however, total Tubes simulation score was correlated with higher GEARS Force Sensitivity subscore (ρ = 0.73, p = .05). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, there was limited correlation between simulation score metrics and trainees' overall intraoperative performance. Furthermore, we identified that GEARS scores could not distinguish between similar trainee skill levels. These findings underscore the need to develop intraoperative assessment tools that can better discriminate different but similar skill levels.

Lens extraction for chronic angle-closure glaucoma.

BACKGROUND: Primary angle-closure glaucoma (PACG) is characterized by a rise in intraocular pressure (IOP) secondary to aqueous outflow obstruction, with relative pupillary block being the most common underlying mechanism. There is increasing evidence that lens extraction may relieve pupillary block and thereby improve IOP control. As such, comparing the effectiveness of lens extraction against other commonly used treatment modalities can help inform the decision-making process. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of lens extraction compared with other interventions in the treatment of chronic PACG in people without previous acute angle-closure attacks. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, one other database, and two trials registers (December 2019). We also screened the reference lists of included studies and the Science Citation Index database. We had no date or language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing lens extraction with other treatment modalities for chronic PACG. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. MAIN RESULTS: We identified eight RCTs with 914 eyes. We obtained data for participants meeting our inclusion criteria for these studies (PACG only, no previous acute angle-closure attacks), resulting in 513 eyes included in this review. The participants were recruited from a diverse range of countries. We were unable to conduct meta-analyses due to different follow-up periods and insufficient data. One study compared phacoemulsification with laser peripheral iridotomy (LPI) as standard care. Participants in the phacoemulsification group were less likely to experience progression of visual field loss (odds ratio [OR] 0.35, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.13 to 0.91; 216 eyes; moderate certainty evidence), and required fewer IOP-lowering medications (mean difference [MD] -0.70, 95% CI -0.89 to -0.51; 263 eyes; moderate certainty evidence) compared with standard care at 12 months. Moderate certainty evidence also suggested that phacoemulsification improved gonioscopic findings at 12 months or later (MD -84.93, 95% CI -131.25 to -38.61; 106 eyes). There was little to no difference in health-related quality of life measures (MD 0.04, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.24; 254 eyes; moderate certainty evidence), and visual acuity (VA) (MD 2.03 ETDRS letter, 95% CI -0.77 to 4.84; 242 eyes) at 12 months, and no observable difference in mean IOP (MD -0.03mmHg, 95% CI -2.34 to 2.32; 257 eyes; moderate certainty evidence) compared to standard care. Irreversible loss of vision was observed in one participant in the phacoemulsification group, and three participants in standard care at 36 months (moderate-certainty evidence). One study (91 eyes) compared phacoemulsification with phaco-viscogonioplasty (phaco-VGP). Low-certainty evidence suggested that fewer IOP-lowering medications were needed at 12 months with phacoemulsification (MD -0.30, 95% CI -0.55 to -0.05). Low-certainty evidence also suggested that phacoemulsification may have improved gonioscopic findings at 12 months or later compared to phaco-VGP (angle grading MD -0.60, 95% CI -0.91 to -0.29; TISA500 MD -0.03, 95% CI -0.06 to -0.01; TISA750 MD -0.03, 95% CI -0.06 to -0.01; 91 eyes). Phacoemulsification may result in little to no difference in best corrected VA at 12 months (MD -0.01 log MAR units, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.08; low certainty evidence), and the evidence is very uncertain about its effect on IOP at 12 months (MD 0.50 mmHg, 95% CI -2.64 to 3.64; very low certainty evidence). Postoperative fibrin reaction was observed in two participants in the phacoemulsification group and four in the phaco-VGP group. Three participants in the phaco-VGP group experienced hyphema. No data were available for progression of visual field loss and quality of life measurements at 12 months. Two studies compared phacoemulsification with phaco-goniosynechialysis (phaco-GSL). Low-certainty evidence suggested that there may be little to no difference in mean IOP at 12 months (MD -0.12 mmHg, 95% CI -4.72 to 4.48; 1 study, 32 eyes) between the interventions. Phacoemulsification did not reduce the number of IOP-lowering medications compared to phaco-GSL at 12 months (MD -0.38, 95% CI -1.23 to 0.47; 1 study, 32 eyes; moderate certainty evidence). Three eyes in the phaco-GSL group developed hyphemas. No data were available at 12 months for progression of visual field loss, gonioscopic findings, visual acuity, and quality of life measures. Three studies compared phacoemulsification with combined phaco-trabeculectomy, but the data were only available for one study (63 eyes). In this study, low-certainty evidence suggested that there was little to no difference between groups in mean change in IOP from baseline (MD -0.60 mmHg, 95% CI -1.99 to 0.79), number of IOP-lowering medications at 12 months (MD 0.00, 95% CI -0.42 to 0.42), and VA measured by the Snellen chart (MD -0.03, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.12). Participants in the phacoemulsification group had fewer complications (risk ratio [RR] 0.59, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.04), and the phaco-trabeculectomy group required more IOP-lowering procedures (RR 5.81, 95% CI 1.41 to 23.88), but the evidence was very uncertain. No data were available for other outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Moderate certainty evidence showed that lens extraction has an advantage over LPI in treating chronic PACG with clear crystalline lenses over three years of follow-up; ultimately, the decision for intervention should be part of a shared decision-making process between the clinician and the patient. For people with chronic PACG and visually significant cataracts, low certainty evidence suggested that combining phacoemulsification with either viscogonioplasty or goniosynechialysis does not confer any additional benefit over phacoemulsification alone. There was insufficient evidence to draw any meaningful conclusions regarding phacoemulsification versus trabeculectomy. Low certainty evidence suggested that combining phacoemulsification with trabeculectomy does not confer any additional benefit over phacoemulsification alone, and may cause more complications instead. These conclusions only apply to short- to medium-term outcomes; studies with longer follow-up periods can help assess whether these effects persist in the long term.

Interventions for preventing ophthalmia neonatorum.

BACKGROUND: Ophthalmia neonatorum is an infection of the eyes in newborns that can lead to blindness, particularly if the infection is caused by Neisseria gonorrhoeae. Antiseptic or antibiotic medication is dispensed into the eyes of newborns, or dispensed systemically, soon after delivery to prevent neonatal conjunctivitis and potential vision impairment. OBJECTIVES: 1. To determine if any type of systemic or topical eye medication is better than placebo or no prophylaxis in preventing ophthalmia neonatorum. 2. To determine if any one systemic or topical eye medication is better than any other medication in preventing ophthalmia neonatorum. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and three trials registers, date of last search 4 October 2019. We also searched references of included studies and contacted pharmaceutical companies.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of any topical, systemic, or combination medical interventions used to prevent ophthalmia neonatorum in newborns compared with placebo, no prophylaxis, or with each other. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methods expected by Cochrane. Outcomes were: blindness or any adverse visual outcome at 12 months, conjunctivitis at 1 month (gonococcal (GC), chlamydial (CC), bacterial (BC), any aetiology (ACAE), or unknown aetiology (CUE)), and adverse effects.  MAIN RESULTS: We included 30 trials with a total of 79,198 neonates. Eighteen studies were conducted in high-income settings (the USA, Europe, Israel, Canada), and 12 were conducted in low- and middle-income settings (Africa, Iran, China, Indonesia, Mexico). Fifteen of the 30 studies were quasi-randomised. We judged every study to be at high risk of bias in at least one domain. Ten studies included a comparison arm with no prophylaxis. There were 14 different prophylactic regimens and 12 different medications in the 30 included studies. Any prophylaxis compared to no prophylaxis  Unless otherwise indicated, the following evidence comes from studies assessing one or more of the following interventions: tetracycline 1%, erythromycin 0.5%, povidone-iodine 2.5%, silver nitrate 1%. None of the studies reported data on the primary outcomes: blindness or any adverse visual outcome at any time point. There was only very low-certainty evidence on the risk of GC with prophylaxis (4/5340 newborns) compared to no prophylaxis (5/2889) at one month (risk ratio (RR) 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.24 to 2.65, 3 studies). Low-certainty evidence suggested there may be little or no difference in effect on CC (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.61, 4874 newborns, 2 studies) and BC (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.93, 3685 newborns, 2 studies). Moderate-certainty evidence suggested a probable reduction in risk of ACAE at one month (RR 0.65, 95% 0.54 to 0.78, 9666 newborns, 8 studies assessing tetracycline 1%, erythromycin 0.5%, povidone-iodine 2.5%, silver nitrate 1%, colostrum, bacitracin-phenacaine ointment). There was only very low-certainty evidence on CUE  (RR 1.75, 95% CI 0.37 to 8.28, 330 newborns, 1 study). Very low-certainty evidence on adverse effects suggested no increased nasolacrimal duct obstruction (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.28, 404 newborns, 1 study of erythromycin 0.5% and silver nitrate 1%) and no increased keratitis (single study of 40 newborns assessing silver nitrate 1% with no events).    Any prophylaxis compared to another prophylaxis Overall, evidence comparing different interventions did not suggest any consistently superior intervention. However, most of this evidence was of low-certainty and was extremely limited. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There are no data on whether prophylaxis for ophthalmia neonatorum prevents serious outcomes such as blindness or any adverse visual outcome. Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that the use of prophylaxis may lead to a reduction in the incidence of ACAE in newborns but the evidence for effect on GC, CC or BC was less certain. Comparison of individual interventions did not suggest any consistently superior intervention, but data were limited. A trial comparing tetracycline, povidone-iodine (single administration), and chloramphenicol for GC and CC could potentially provide the community with an effective, universally applicable prophylaxis against ophthalmia neonatorum.

Occlusion for stimulus deprivation amblyopia.

BACKGROUND: Stimulus deprivation amblyopia (SDA) develops due to an obstruction to the passage of light secondary to a condition such as cataract. The obstruction prevents formation of a clear image on the retina. SDA can be resistant to treatment, leading to poor visual prognosis. SDA probably constitutes less than 3% of all amblyopia cases, although precise estimates of prevalence are unknown. In high-income countries, most people present under the age of one year; in low- to middle-income countries, people are likely to be older at the time of presentation. The mainstay of treatment is correction of the obstruction (e.g., removal of the cataract) and then occlusion of the better-seeing eye, but regimens vary, can be difficult to execute, and traditionally are believed to lead to disappointing results. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of occlusion therapy for SDA in an attempt to establish realistic treatment outcomes and to examine evidence of any dose-response effect and assess the effect of the duration, severity, and causative factor on the size and direction of the treatment effect. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (2018, Issue 12), which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; Ovid MEDLINE; Embase.com; and five other databases. We used no date or language restrictions in the electronic searches. We last searched the databases on 12 December 2018. SELECTION CRITERIA: We planned to include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials of participants with unilateral SDA with visual acuity worse than 0.2 LogMAR or equivalent. We specified no restrictions for inclusion based upon age, gender, ethnicity, comorbidities, medication use, or the number of participants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodology. MAIN RESULTS: We identified no trials that met the inclusion criteria specified in the protocol for this review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence from RCTs or quasi-randomized trials on the effectiveness of any treatment for SDA. RCTs are needed in order to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of occlusion, duration of treatment, level of vision that can be realistically achieved, effects of age at onset and magnitude of visual defect, optimum occlusion regimen, and factors associated with satisfactory and unsatisfactory outcomes with the use of various interventions for SDA.

Interventions to slow progression of myopia in children.

BACKGROUND: Nearsightedness (myopia) causes blurry vision when one is looking at distant objects. Interventions to slow the progression of myopia in children include multifocal spectacles, contact lenses, and pharmaceutical agents. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of interventions, including spectacles, contact lenses, and pharmaceutical agents in slowing myopia progression in children. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL; Ovid MEDLINE; Embase.com; PubMed; the LILACS Database; and two trial registrations up to February 2018. A top up search was done in February 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We excluded studies when most participants were older than 18 years at baseline. We also excluded studies when participants had less than -0.25 diopters (D) spherical equivalent myopia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methods. MAIN RESULTS: We included 41 studies (6772 participants). Twenty-one studies contributed data to at least one meta-analysis. Interventions included spectacles, contact lenses, pharmaceutical agents, and combination treatments. Most studies were conducted in Asia or in the United States. Except one, all studies included children 18 years or younger. Many studies were at high risk of performance and attrition bias. Spectacle lenses: undercorrection of myopia increased myopia progression slightly in two studies; children whose vision was undercorrected progressed on average -0.15 D (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.29 to 0.00; n = 142; low-certainty evidence) more than those wearing fully corrected single vision lenses (SVLs). In one study, axial length increased 0.05 mm (95% CI -0.01 to 0.11) more in the undercorrected group than in the fully corrected group (n = 94; low-certainty evidence). Multifocal lenses (bifocal spectacles or progressive addition lenses) yielded small effect in slowing myopia progression; children wearing multifocal lenses progressed on average 0.14 D (95% CI 0.08 to 0.21; n = 1463; moderate-certainty evidence) less than children wearing SVLs. In four studies, axial elongation was less for multifocal lens wearers than for SVL wearers (-0.06 mm, 95% CI -0.09 to -0.04; n = 896; moderate-certainty evidence). Three studies evaluating different peripheral plus spectacle lenses versus SVLs reported inconsistent results for refractive error and axial length outcomes (n = 597; low-certainty evidence). Contact lenses: there may be little or no difference between vision of children wearing bifocal soft contact lenses (SCLs) and children wearing single vision SCLs (mean difference (MD) 0.20D, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.47; n = 300; low-certainty evidence). Axial elongation was less for bifocal SCL wearers than for single vision SCL wearers (MD -0.11 mm, 95% CI -0.14 to -0.08; n = 300; low-certainty evidence). Two studies investigating rigid gas permeable contact lenses (RGPCLs) showed inconsistent results in myopia progression; these two studies also found no evidence of difference in axial elongation (MD 0.02mm, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.10; n = 415; very low-certainty evidence). Orthokeratology contact lenses were more effective than SVLs in slowing axial elongation (MD -0.28 mm, 95% CI -0.38 to -0.19; n = 106; moderate-certainty evidence). Two studies comparing spherical aberration SCLs with single vision SCLs reported no difference in myopia progression nor in axial length (n = 209; low-certainty evidence). Pharmaceutical agents: at one year, children receiving atropine eye drops (3 studies; n = 629), pirenzepine gel (2 studies; n = 326), or cyclopentolate eye drops (1 study; n = 64) showed significantly less myopic progression compared with children receiving placebo: MD 1.00 D (95% CI 0.93 to 1.07), 0.31 D (95% CI 0.17 to 0.44), and 0.34 (95% CI 0.08 to 0.60), respectively (moderate-certainty evidence). Axial elongation was less for children treated with atropine (MD -0.35 mm, 95% CI -0.38 to -0.31; n = 502) and pirenzepine (MD -0.13 mm, 95% CI -0.14 to -0.12; n = 326) than for those treated with placebo (moderate-certainty evidence) in two studies. Another study showed favorable results for three different doses of atropine eye drops compared with tropicamide eye drops (MD 0.78 D, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.07 for 0.1% atropine; MD 0.81 D, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.05 for 0.25% atropine; and MD 1.01 D, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.28 for 0.5% atropine; n = 196; low-certainty evidence) but did not report axial length. Systemic 7-methylxanthine had little to no effect on myopic progression (MD 0.07 D, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.24) nor on axial elongation (MD -0.03 mm, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.03) compared with placebo in one study (n = 77; moderate-certainty evidence). One study did not find slowed myopia progression when comparing timolol eye drops with no drops (MD -0.05 D, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.11; n = 95; low-certainty evidence). Combinations of interventions: two studies found that children treated with atropine plus multifocal spectacles progressed 0.78 D (95% CI 0.54 to 1.02) less than children treated with placebo plus SVLs (n = 191; moderate-certainty evidence). One study reported -0.37 mm (95% CI -0.47 to -0.27) axial elongation for atropine and multifocal spectacles when compared with placebo plus SVLs (n = 127; moderate-certainty evidence). Compared with children treated with cyclopentolate plus SVLs, those treated with atropine plus multifocal spectacles progressed 0.36 D less (95% CI 0.11 to 0.61; n = 64; moderate-certainty evidence). Bifocal spectacles showed small or negligible effect compared with SVLs plus timolol drops in one study (MD 0.19 D, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.32; n = 97; moderate-certainty evidence). One study comparing tropicamide plus bifocal spectacles versus SVLs reported no statistically significant differences between groups without quantitative results. No serious adverse events were reported across all interventions. Participants receiving antimuscarinic topical medications were more likely to experience accommodation difficulties (Risk Ratio [RR] 9.05, 95% CI 4.09 to 20.01) and papillae and follicles (RR 3.22, 95% CI 2.11 to 4.90) than participants receiving placebo (n=387; moderate-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Antimuscarinic topical medication is effective in slowing myopia progression in children. Multifocal lenses, either spectacles or contact lenses, may also confer a small benefit. Orthokeratology contact lenses, although not intended to modify refractive error, were more effective than SVLs in slowing axial elongation. We found only low or very low-certainty evidence to support RGPCLs and sperical aberration SCLs.

Objective Assessment of Surgical Technical Skill and Competency in the Operating Room.

Training skillful and competent surgeons is critical to ensure high quality of care and to minimize disparities in access to effective care. Traditional models to train surgeons are being challenged by rapid advances in technology, an intensified patient-safety culture, and a need for value-driven health systems. Simultaneously, technological developments are enabling capture and analysis of large amounts of complex surgical data. These developments are motivating a "surgical data science" approach to objective computer-aided technical skill evaluation (OCASE-T) for scalable, accurate assessment; individualized feedback; and automated coaching. We define the problem space for OCASE-T and summarize 45 publications representing recent research in this domain. We find that most studies on OCASE-T are simulation based; very few are in the operating room. The algorithms and validation methodologies used for OCASE-T are highly varied; there is no uniform consensus. Future research should emphasize competency assessment in the operating room, validation against patient outcomes, and effectiveness for surgical training.

Innovations in data collection, management, and archiving for systematic reviews.

Data abstraction is a key step in conducting systematic reviews because data collected from study reports form the basis of appropriate conclusions. Recent methodological standards and expectations highlight several principles for data collection. To support implementation of these standards, this article provides a step-by-step tutorial for selecting data collection tools; constructing data collection forms; and abstracting, managing, and archiving data for systematic reviews. Examples are drawn from recent experience using the Systematic Review Data Repository for data collection and management. If it is done well, data collection for systematic reviews only needs to be done by 1 team and placed into a publicly accessible database for future use. Technological innovations, such as the Systematic Review Data Repository, will contribute to finding trustworthy answers for many health and health care questions.

Cost-effectiveness of health research study participant recruitment strategies: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: A large fraction of the cost of conducting clinical trials is allocated to recruitment of participants. A synthesis of findings from studies that evaluate the cost and effectiveness of different recruitment strategies will inform investigators in designing cost-efficient clinical trials. PURPOSE: To systematically identify, assess, and synthesize evidence from published comparisons of the cost and yield of strategies for recruitment of participants to health research studies. METHODS: We included randomized studies in which two or more strategies for recruitment of participants had been compared. We focused our economic evaluation on studies that randomized participants to different recruitment strategies. RESULTS: We identified 10 randomized studies that compared recruitment strategies, including monetary incentives (cash or prize), direct contact (letters or telephone call), and medical referral strategies. Only two of the 10 studies compared strategies for recruiting participants to clinical trials. We found that allocating additional resources to recruit participants using monetary incentives or direct contact yielded between 4% and 23% additional participants compared to using neither strategy. For medical referral, recruitment of prostate cancer patients by nurses was cost-saving compared to recruitment by consultant urologists. For all underlying study designs, monetary incentives cost more than direct contact with potential participants, with a median incremental cost per recruitment ratio of Int$72 (Int$-International dollar, a theoretical unit of currency) for monetary incentive strategy compared to Int$28 for direct contact strategy. Only monetary incentives and source of referral were evaluated for recruiting participants into clinical trials. LIMITATIONS: We did not review studies that presented non-monetary cost or lost opportunity cost. We did not adjust for the number of study recruitment sites or the study duration in our economic evaluation analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Systematic and explicit reporting of cost and effectiveness of recruitment strategies from randomized comparisons is required to aid investigators to select cost-efficient strategies for recruiting participants to health research studies including clinical trials.

OneSLAM to map them all: a generalized approach to SLAM for monocular endoscopic imaging based on tracking any point.

PURPOSE: Monocular SLAM algorithms are the key enabling technology for image-based surgical navigation systems for endoscopic procedures. Due to the visual feature scarcity and unique lighting conditions encountered in endoscopy, classical SLAM approaches perform inconsistently. Many of the recent approaches to endoscopic SLAM rely on deep learning models. They show promising results when optimized on singular domains such as arthroscopy, sinus endoscopy, colonoscopy or laparoscopy, but are limited by an inability to generalize to different domains without retraining. METHODS: To address this generality issue, we propose OneSLAM a monocular SLAM algorithm for surgical endoscopy that works out of the box for several endoscopic domains, including sinus endoscopy, colonoscopy, arthroscopy and laparoscopy. Our pipeline builds upon robust tracking any point (TAP) foundation models to reliably track sparse correspondences across multiple frames and runs local bundle adjustment to jointly optimize camera poses and a sparse 3D reconstruction of the anatomy. RESULTS: We compare the performance of our method against three strong baselines previously proposed for monocular SLAM in endoscopy and general scenes. OneSLAM presents better or comparable performance over existing approaches targeted to that specific data in all four tested domains, generalizing across domains without the need for retraining. CONCLUSION: OneSLAM benefits from the convincing performance of TAP foundation models but generalizes to endoscopic sequences of different anatomies all while demonstrating better or comparable performance over domain-specific SLAM approaches. Future research on global loop closure will investigate how to reliably detect loops in endoscopic scenes to reduce accumulated drift and enhance long-term navigation capabilities.

An endoscopic chisel: intraoperative imaging carves 3D anatomical models.

PURPOSE: Preoperative imaging plays a pivotal role in sinus surgery where CTs offer patient-specific insights of complex anatomy, enabling real-time intraoperative navigation to complement endoscopy imaging. However, surgery elicits anatomical changes not represented in the preoperative model, generating an inaccurate basis for navigation during surgery progression. METHODS: We propose a first vision-based approach to update the preoperative 3D anatomical model leveraging intraoperative endoscopic video for navigated sinus surgery where relative camera poses are known. We rely on comparisons of intraoperative monocular depth estimates and preoperative depth renders to identify modified regions. The new depths are integrated in these regions through volumetric fusion in a truncated signed distance function representation to generate an intraoperative 3D model that reflects tissue manipulation RESULTS: We quantitatively evaluate our approach by sequentially updating models for a five-step surgical progression in an ex vivo specimen. We compute the error between correspondences from the updated model and ground-truth intraoperative CT in the region of anatomical modification. The resulting models show a decrease in error during surgical progression as opposed to increasing when no update is employed. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that preoperative 3D anatomical models can be updated using intraoperative endoscopy video in navigated sinus surgery. Future work will investigate improvements to monocular depth estimation as well as removing the need for external navigation systems. The resulting ability to continuously update the patient model may provide surgeons with a more precise understanding of the current anatomical state and paves the way toward a digital twin paradigm for sinus surgery.

Correcting for Rater Effects in Operating Room Surgical Skills Assessment.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate and adjust for rater effects in operating room surgical skills assessment performed using a structured rating scale for nasal septoplasty. METHODS: We analyzed survey responses from attending surgeons (raters) who supervised residents and fellows (trainees) performing nasal septoplasty in a prospective cohort study. We fit a structural equation model with the rubric item scores regressed on a latent component of skill and then fit a second model including the rating surgeon as a random effect to model a rater-effects-adjusted latent surgical skill. We validated this model against conventional measures including the level of expertise and post-graduation year (PGY) commensurate with the trainee's performance, the actual PGY of the trainee, and whether the surgical goals were achieved. RESULTS: Our dataset included 188 assessments by 7 raters and 41 trainees. The model with one latent construct for surgical skill and the rater as a random effect was the best. Rubric scores depended on how severe or lenient the rater was, sometimes almost as much as they depended on trainee skill. Rater-adjusted latent skill scores increased with attending-estimated skill levels and PGY of trainees, increased with the actual PGY, and appeared constant over different levels of achievement of surgical goals. CONCLUSION: Our work provides a method to obtain rater effect adjusted surgical skill assessments in the operating room using structured rating scales. Our method allows for the creation of standardized (i.e., rater-effects-adjusted) quantitative surgical skill benchmarks using national-level databases on trainee assessments. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: N/A Laryngoscope, 2024.

Differences in reporting of analyses in internal company documents versus published trial reports: comparisons in industry-sponsored trials in off-label uses of gabapentin.

BACKGROUND: Details about the type of analysis (e.g., intent to treat [ITT]) and definitions (i.e., criteria for including participants in the analysis) are necessary for interpreting a clinical trial's findings. Our objective was to compare the description of types of analyses and criteria for including participants in the publication (i.e., what was reported) with descriptions in the corresponding internal company documents (i.e., what was planned and what was done). Trials were for off-label uses of gabapentin sponsored by Pfizer and Parke-Davis, and documents were obtained through litigation. METHODS AND FINDINGS: For each trial, we compared internal company documents (protocols, statistical analysis plans, and research reports, all unpublished), with publications. One author extracted data and another verified, with a third person verifying discordant items and a sample of the rest. Extracted data included the number of participants randomized and analyzed for efficacy, and types of analyses for efficacy and safety and their definitions (i.e., criteria for including participants in each type of analysis). We identified 21 trials, 11 of which were published randomized controlled trials, and that provided the documents needed for planned comparisons. For three trials, there was disagreement on the number of randomized participants between the research report and publication. Seven types of efficacy analyses were described in the protocols, statistical analysis plans, and publications, including ITT and six others. The protocol or publication described ITT using six different definitions, resulting in frequent disagreements between the two documents (i.e., different numbers of participants were included in the analyses). CONCLUSIONS: Descriptions of analyses conducted did not agree between internal company documents and what was publicly reported. Internal company documents provide extensive documentation of methods planned and used, and trial findings, and should be publicly accessible. Reporting standards for randomized controlled trials should recommend transparent descriptions and definitions of analyses performed and which study participants are excluded.

What comparative effectiveness research is needed? A framework for using guidelines and systematic reviews to identify evidence gaps and research priorities.

The authors developed and tested a framework for identifying evidence gaps and prioritizing comparative effectiveness research by using a combination of clinical practice guidelines and systematic reviews. In phase 1 of the project, reported elsewhere, 45 clinical questions on the management of primary open-angle glaucoma were derived from practice guidelines and prioritized by using a 2-round Delphi survey of clinicians. On the basis of the clinicians' responses, 9 questions were classified as high-priority. In phase 2, reported here, systematic reviews that addressed the 45 clinical questions were identified. The reviews were classified as at low, high, or unclear risk of bias, and evidence gaps (in which no systematic review was at low risk of bias) were identified. The following comparative effectiveness research agenda is proposed: Two of the 9 high-priority questions require new primary research (such as a randomized, controlled trial) and 4 require a new systematic review. The utility and limitations of the framework and future adaptations are discussed.

Eye Tracking and Motion Data Predict Endoscopic Sinus Surgery Skill.

OBJECTIVE: Endoscopic surgery has a considerable learning curve due to dissociation of the visual-motor axes, coupled with decreased tactile feedback and mobility. In particular, endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) lacks objective skill assessment metrics to provide specific feedback to trainees. This study aims to identify summary metrics from eye tracking, endoscope motion, and tool motion to objectively assess surgeons' ESS skill. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, expert and novice surgeons performed ESS tasks of inserting an endoscope and tool into a cadaveric nose, touching an anatomical landmark, and withdrawing the endoscope and tool out of the nose. Tool and endoscope motion were collected using an electromagnetic tracker, and eye gaze was tracked using an infrared camera. Three expert surgeons provided binary assessments of low/high skill. 20 summary statistics were calculated for eye, tool, and endoscope motion and used in logistic regression models to predict surgical skill. RESULTS: 14 metrics (10 eye gaze, 2 tool motion, and 2 endoscope motion) were significantly different between surgeons with low and high skill. Models to predict skill for 6/9 ESS tasks had an AUC >0.95. A combined model of all tasks (AUC 0.95, PPV 0.93, NPV 0.89) included metrics from eye tracking data and endoscope motion, indicating that these metrics are transferable across tasks. CONCLUSIONS: Eye gaze, endoscope, and tool motion data can provide an objective and accurate measurement of ESS surgical performance. Incorporation of these algorithmic techniques intraoperatively could allow for automated skill assessment for trainees learning endoscopic surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: N/A Laryngoscope, 133:500-505, 2023.

Opportunity Cost to Attending Surgeons of Intraoperative Training for Residents in Cataract Surgery.

Purpose: To estimate the opportunity cost to attending surgeons of teaching residents cataract surgery in the operating room. Patients and methods: Operating room records at an academic teaching hospital from July 2016 to July 2020 were analyzed in this retrospective review of cases. Cases were identified using Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes 66982 and 66984 for cataract surgery. Outcomes measured include operative time and work relative value units (wRVUs). Cost analysis was performed using the generic 2021 Medicare Conversion Factor. Results: Of 8813 cases, 2906 (33.0%) included resident involvement. For CPT 66982 cases, median (interquartile range (IQR)) operative time was 47 (22) minutes with resident involvement and 28 (18) minutes without (p<0.001). For CPT 66984 cases, median (IQR) operative time was 34 (15) minutes with resident involvement and 20 (11) minutes without (p<0.001). Median wRVUs was 78.5 (20.9) with resident involvement and 61.0 (14.4) without (p<0.001) which converted to an opportunity cost (IQR) per case of $1393.72 ($1055.63). Among cases involving residents, median operative time was significantly higher during the first and second quarters (p<0.001) and for every quarter when compared to cases performed by attendings only (p<0.001). Conclusion: Teaching cataract surgery in the operating room is associated with a considerable opportunity cost for attending surgeons.

Outcome reporting in industry-sponsored trials of gabapentin for off-label use.

BACKGROUND: There is good evidence of selective outcome reporting in published reports of randomized trials. METHODS: We examined reporting practices for trials of gabapentin funded by Pfizer and Warner-Lambert's subsidiary, Parke-Davis (hereafter referred to as Pfizer and Parke-Davis) for off-label indications (prophylaxis against migraine and treatment of bipolar disorders, neuropathic pain, and nociceptive pain), comparing internal company documents with published reports. RESULTS: We identified 20 clinical trials for which internal documents were available from Pfizer and Parke-Davis; of these trials, 12 were reported in publications. For 8 of the 12 reported trials, the primary outcome defined in the published report differed from that described in the protocol. Sources of disagreement included the introduction of a new primary outcome (in the case of 6 trials), failure to distinguish between primary and secondary outcomes (2 trials), relegation of primary outcomes to secondary outcomes (2 trials), and failure to report one or more protocol-defined primary outcomes (5 trials). Trials that presented findings that were not significant (P > or = 0.05) for the protocol-defined primary outcome in the internal documents either were not reported in full or were reported with a changed primary outcome. The primary outcome was changed in the case of 5 of 8 published trials for which statistically significant differences favoring gabapentin were reported. Of the 21 primary outcomes described in the protocols of the published trials, 6 were not reported at all and 4 were reported as secondary outcomes. Of 28 primary outcomes described in the published reports, 12 were newly introduced. CONCLUSIONS: We identified selective outcome reporting for trials of off-label use of gabapentin. This practice threatens the validity of evidence for the effectiveness of off-label interventions.

A Unified Framework on Generalizability of Clinical Prediction Models.

To be useful, clinical prediction models (CPMs) must be generalizable to patients in new settings. Evaluating generalizability of CPMs helps identify spurious relationships in data, provides insights on when they fail, and thus, improves the explainability of the CPMs. There are discontinuities in concepts related to generalizability of CPMs in the clinical research and machine learning domains. Specifically, conventional statistical reasons to explain poor generalizability such as inadequate model development for the purposes of generalizability, differences in coding of predictors and outcome between development and external datasets, measurement error, inability to measure some predictors, and missing data, all have differing and often complementary treatments, in the two domains. Much of the current machine learning literature on generalizability of CPMs is in terms of dataset shift of which several types have been described. However, little research exists to synthesize concepts in the two domains. Bridging this conceptual discontinuity in the context of CPMs can facilitate systematic development of CPMs and evaluation of their sensitivity to factors that affect generalizability. We survey generalizability and dataset shift in CPMs from both the clinical research and machine learning perspectives, and describe a unifying framework to analyze generalizability of CPMs and to explain their sensitivity to factors affecting it. Our framework leads to a set of signaling statements that can be used to characterize differences between datasets in terms of factors that affect generalizability of the CPMs.