Gender and ethnic diversity in global ophthalmology and optometry association leadership: a time for change.

PURPOSE: To assess the diversity of leadership bodies of member organisations of the International Council of Ophthalmology (ICO) and the World Council of Optometry (WCO) in terms of: (1) the proportion who are women in all world regions, and (2) the proportion who are ethnic minority women and men in Eurocentric high-income regions. METHODS: We undertook a cross-sectional study of board members and chairs of ICO and WCO member organisations using a desk-based assessment of member organisation websites during February and March 2020. Gender and ethnicity of board members and chairs were collected using a combination of validated algorithmic software and manual assessment, based on names and photographs where available. Gender proportions were calculated across Global Burden of Disease super-regions, and gender and ethnicity proportions in the high-income regions of Australasia, North America and Western Europe. RESULTS: Globally, approximately one in three board members were women for both ICO (34%) and WCO (35%) members, and one in three ICO (32%) and one in five WCO (22%) chairpersons were women. Women held at least 50% of posts in only three of the 26 (12%) leadership structures assessed; these were based in Latin America and the Caribbean (59% of WCO board positions held by women, and 56% of WCO chairs), and Southeast Asia, East Asia and Oceania (55% of ICO chairs). In the Eurocentric high-income regions, white men held more than half of all board (56%) and chair (58%) positions and white women held a further quarter of positions (26% of board and 27% of chair positions). Ethnic minority women held the fewest number of board (6%) and chair (7%) positions. CONCLUSIONS: Improvements in gender parity are needed in member organisations of the WCO and ICO across all world regions. In high-income regions, efforts to address inequity at the intersection of gender and ethnicity are also needed. Potential strategies to enable inclusive leadership must be centred on structurally enabled diversity and inclusion goals to support the professional progression of women, and people from ethnic minorities in global optometry and ophthalmology.

Ophthalmology and Ethics in the COVID-19 Era.

PURPOSE: The novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19), has disrupted the practice of ophthalmology and threatens to forever alter how we care for our patients. Physicians across the country encounter unique clinical dilemmas daily. This paper presents a curated set of ethical dilemmas facing ophthalmologists both during and following the pandemic. DESIGN: Perspective. METHODS: Case presentations drawn from actual clinical scenarios were presented during a virtual ophthalmology grand rounds and discussed with the director of clinical ethics at Columbia University Irving Medical Center. RESULTS: It has become routine to expect an ophthalmologist to be involved in many levels of care for patients critically ill with COVID-19. Ophthalmology patients, even those with chronic, progressive conditions, are being triaged, and vision-saving interventions are being postponed. Four questions were applied to each scenario, allowing for ethical conclusions to be reached. The following questions were posed: what is the imminence and severity of the harm expected without intervention? What is the efficacy of the intervention under consideration? What are the risks of treatment for the patient? What are the risks of treating the patient for the health care team? CONCLUSIONS: During this pandemic and for months, perhaps years, to come, it is critical to reconsider the ethical principles underlying modern medicine and ophthalmic care as well as the ramifications of our decisions and actions.

Predatory Publishing in Ophthalmology: A Call for Awareness and Action.

PURPOSE: To describe the phenomenon of predatory publishing, its impact on the field of ophthalmology, and specific characteristics associated with predatory journals for authors to review prior to selecting a journal for submission of scientific work. DESIGN: Descriptive editorial article. METHODS: Literature review of currently published literature regarding the topic. RESULTS: Predatory publishing has had a significant impact on the quality of literature in the scientific world, on funding opportunities across countries and institutions, and on individual physician and scientist careers. There are a significant number of predatory journals in ophthalmology, but fewer than in other specialties. CONCLUSION: We must raise awareness about the existence of predatory publishing within ophthalmology, and must individually act to limit contributing to its growth by critically appraising each publisher and journal prior to submitting our scientific work.

[Bioethical issues on the access to drugs in the practice of ophthalmology in Colombia]. / Cuestiones bioéticas relacionadas con el acceso a medicamentos en el ejercicio de la oftalmología en Colombia.

Ophthalmology is a high-cost specialty in terms of medical, surgical and technological innovation and treatment. It is worrisome that in some countries patients are affected in their visual health, and therefore in their quality of life because they do not have the necessary resources for timely access to medications, medical appointments or surgical procedures. We searched in four electronic databases (ScienceDirect, MEDLINE/PubMed, ClinicalKey and SciELO), as well as in books on bioethics and Colombian laws, for articles related to bioethical issues and access to medicines in the exercise of ophthalmology. We reflect on the problem of access to ophthalmological drugs, with particular interest on how to apply the principles of bioethics on the clinical practice of patients with ophthalmological conditions. Ethical considerations are approached from the principles of Beauchamp and Childress, especially regarding the principle of justice, in order to provide health professionals in this field with arguments for medical and ethical decisions that benefit the healthcare and access to medicines for patients with ophthalmological conditions.

La oftalmología se constituye como una especialidad de alto costo en lo que respecta a tratamiento médico, quirúrgico y de innovación tecnológica. Es preocupante que en algunos países los pacientes se vean afectados en su salud visual, y por ende en su calidad de vida, por no contar con los recursos necesarios para un acceso oportuno a medicamentos, citas médicas o procedimientos quirúrgicos. A partir de la búsqueda de artículos relacionados con cuestiones bioéticas y el acceso a medicamentos en el ejercicio de la oftalmología en cuatro bases de datos electrónicas (ScienceDirect, MEDLINE/PubMed, ClinicalKey y SciELO ), así como en libros de bioética y leyes de la jurisdicción colombiana, realizamos una reflexión sobre el problema del acceso a los medicamentos oftalmológicos, centrándonos en el interés por la aplicación de la bioética en la práctica clínica y en el acceso a medicamentos de los pacientes con patologías oftalmológicas. Las consideraciones éticas se abordan desde una mirada del modelo principialista de Beauchamp y Childress, en especial considerando el principio de justicia, de modo que brinde a los profesionales de la salud en este campo, argumentos para la toma de decisiones médicas y éticas que beneficien la atención y el acceso a medicamentos de los pacientes con patologías oftalmológicas.

Cuestiones bioéticas relacionadas con el acceso a medicamentos en el ejercicio de la oftalmología en Colombia / Bioethical issues on the access to drugs in the practice of ophthalmology in Colombia

Resumen La oftalmología se constituye como una especialidad de alto costo en lo que respecta a tratamiento médico, quirúrgico y de innovación tecnológica. Es preocupante que en algunos países los pacientes se vean afectados en su salud visual, y por ende en su calidad de vida, por no contar con los recursos necesarios para un acceso oportuno a medicamentos, citas médicas o procedimientos quirúrgicos. A partir de la búsqueda de artículos relacionados con cuestiones bioéticas y el acceso a medicamentos en el ejercicio de la oftalmología en cuatro bases de datos electrónicas (ScienceDirect, MEDLINE/PubMed, ClinicalKey y SciELO ), así como en libros de bioética y leyes de la jurisdicción colombiana, realizamos una reflexión sobre el problema del acceso a los medicamentos oftalmológicos, centrándonos en el interés por la aplicación de la bioética en la práctica clínica y en el acceso a medicamentos de los pacientes con patologías oftalmológicas. Las consideraciones éticas se abordan desde una mirada del modelo principialista de Beauchamp y Childress, en especial considerando el principio de justicia, de modo que brinde a los profesionales de la salud en este campo, argumentos para la toma de decisiones médicas y éticas que beneficien la atención y el acceso a medicamentos de los pacientes con patologías oftalmológicas.

Abstract Ophthalmology is a high-cost specialty in terms of medical, surgical and technological innovation and treatment. It is worrisome that in some countries patients are affected in their visual health, and therefore in their quality of life because they do not have the necessary resources for timely access to medications, medical appointments or surgical procedures. We searched in four electronic databases (ScienceDirect, MEDLINE/PubMed, ClinicalKey and SciELO), as well as in books on bioethics and Colombian laws, for articles related to bioethical issues and access to medicines in the exercise of ophthalmology. We reflect on the problem of access to ophthalmological drugs, with particular interest on how to apply the principles of bioethics on the clinical practice of patients with ophthalmological conditions. Ethical considerations are approached from the principles of Beauchamp and Childress, especially regarding the principle of justice, in order to provide health professionals in this field with arguments for medical and ethical decisions that benefit the healthcare and access to medicines for patients with ophthalmological conditions.

Dependability of results in conference abstracts of randomized controlled trials in ophthalmology and author financial conflicts of interest as a factor associated with full publication.

BACKGROUND: Discrepancies between information in conference abstracts and full publications describing the same randomized controlled trial have been reported. The association between author conflicts of interest and the publication of randomized controlled trials is unclear. The objective of this study was to use randomized controlled trials in ophthalmology to evaluate (1) the agreement in the reported main outcome results by comparing abstracts and corresponding publications and (2) the association between the author conflicts of interest and publication of the results presented in the abstracts. METHODS: We considered abstracts describing results of randomized controlled trials presented at the 2001-2004 Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology conferences as eligible for our study. Through electronic searching and by emailing abstract authors, we identified the earliest publication (journal article) containing results of each abstract's main outcome through November 2013. We categorized the discordance between the main outcome results in the abstract and its paired publication as qualitative (a difference in the direction of the estimated effect) or as quantitative. We used the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology categories for conflicts of interest: financial interest, employee of business with interest, consultant to business with interest, inventor/developer with patent, and receiving ≥ 1 gift from industry in the past year. We calculated the relative risks (RRs) of publication associated with the categories of conflicts of interest for abstracts with results that were statistically significant, not statistically significant, or not reported. RESULTS: We included 513 abstracts, 230 (44.8 %) of which reached publication. Among the 86 pairs with the same main outcome domain at the same time point, 47 pairs (54.7 %) had discordant results: qualitative discordance in 7 pairs and quantitative discordance in 40 pairs. Quantitative discordance was indicated as < 10, 10-20, > 20 %, and unclear in 14, 5, 14, and 7 pairs, respectively. First authors reporting of one or more conflicts of interest was associated with a greater likelihood of publication (RR = 1.31; 95 % CI = 1.04 to 1.64) and a shorter time-to-publication (log-rank p = 0.026). First author conflicts of interests that were associated with publication were financial support (RR = 1.50; 95 % CI = 1.19 to 1.90) and one or more gifts (RR = 1.42; 95 % CI = 1.05 to 1.92). The association between conflicts of interest and publication remained, irrespective of the statistical significance of the results. CONCLUSIONS: More than half the abstract/publication pairs exhibited some amount of discordance in the main outcome results, calling into question the dependability of conference abstracts. Regardless of the main outcome results, the conflicts of interests of the abstract's first author were associated with publication.