The 2021 Portuguese Society of Ophthalmology joint guidelines with Paediatric Rheumatology on the screening, monitoring and medical treatment of juvenile idiopathic arthritis-associated uveitis.

AIM: To develop the first Ophthalmology joint guidelines with Paediatric Rheumatology with recommendations on the screening, monitoring and medical treatment of juvenile idiopathic arthritis-associated uveitis (JIA-U), endorsed by the Portuguese Society of Ophthalmology (SPO). METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted to include publications up to July 14th 2020, with no language restrictions, in order to include all the international position papers/guidelines concerning the medical management of JIA-U and randomised clinical trials assessing the efficacy and safety of medical treatment in this field. We searched through MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus, Web of Science and Cochrane Library. The Delphi modified technique to generate consensus was used. Preliminary evidence statements were subject to an anonymous agreement assessment and discussion process using an online survey, followed by further discussion and update at a national meeting. A draft of the manuscript with all recommendations was then circulated among all participants and suggestions were incorporated. The final version was again circulated before publication. RESULTS: Twenty-six recommendations were developed focusing on the following topics: general management (3), screening and follow-up of uveitis (4), treatment (17) and health education in JIA-U among patients and families (2). CONCLUSION: These guidelines were designed to support the shared medical management of patients with JIA-U and emphasize the need for a multidisciplinary approach between Ophthalmology and Paediatric Rheumatology regarding the comprehensive care of JIA-U. We acknowledge that updating these recommendations will be warranted in the future, as more evidence becomes available. KEY-WORDS: juvenile idiopathic arthritis, uveitis, biological treatment, conventional immunosuppressive treatment, multidisciplinary management, guidelines, consensus, review, Delphi Technique.

The many meanings of evidence: a comparative analysis of the forms and roles of evidence within three health policy processes in Cambodia.

BACKGROUND: Discussions within the health community routinely emphasise the importance of evidence in informing policy formulation and implementation. Much of the support for the evidence-based policy movement draws from concern that policy decisions are often based on inadequate engagement with high-quality evidence. In many such discussions, evidence is treated as differing only in quality, and assumed to improve decisions if it can only be used more. In contrast, political science scholars have described this as an overly simplistic view of the policy-making process, noting that research 'use' can mean a variety of things and relies on nuanced aspects of political systems. An approach more in recognition of how policy-making systems operate in practice can be to consider how institutions and ideas influence which pieces of evidence appear to be relevant for, and are used within, different policy processes. METHODS: Drawing on in-depth interviews undertaken in 2015-2016 with key health sector stakeholders in Cambodia, we investigate the evidence perceived to be relevant to policy decisions for three contrasting health policy examples, namely tobacco control, HIV/AIDS and performance-based salary incentives. These cases allow us to examine the ways that policy-relevant evidence may differ given the framing of the issue and the broader institutional context in which evidence is considered. RESULTS: The three health issues show few similarities in how pieces of evidence were used in various aspects of policy-making, despite all being discussed within a broad policy environment in which evidence-based policy-making is rhetorically championed. Instead, we find that evidence use can be better understood by mapping how these health policy issues differ in terms of the issue characteristics, and also in terms of the stakeholders structurally established as having a dominant influence for each issue. Both of these have important implications for evidence use. Contrasting concerns of key stakeholders meant that evidence related to differing issues could be understood in terms of how it was relevant to policy. The stakeholders involved, however, could further be seen to possess differing logics about how to go about achieving their various outcomes - logics that could further help explain the differences seen in evidence utilisation. CONCLUSION: A comparative approach reiterates that evidence is not a uniform concept for which more is obviously better, but rather illustrates how different constructions and pieces of evidence become relevant in relation to the features of specific health policy decisions. An institutional approach that considers the structural position of stakeholders with differing core goals or objectives, as well as their logics related to evidence utilisation, can further help to understand some of the complexities of evidence use in health policy-making.

Optical coherence tomography for classification and clinical evaluation of macular edema in patients with uveitis.

PURPOSE: To study use of optical coherence tomography (OCT) for macular edema in uveitis. METHODS: In total, 44 patients with uveitis and macular edema underwent OCT. Data obtained were correlated with anatomic type, duration of uveitis, and visual acuity (VA). RESULTS: Both cystoid macular edema (CME) and diffuse macular edema (DME) correlate negatively with VA, although statistically CME showed stronger correlation (p = .02). Also CME had higher mean foveal thickness than DME (p < .01). Negative correlation between foveal thickness and VA (p < .05) was observed. CME correlates with uveitis duration (p < .01). CONCLUSIONS: CME and macular thickening correlate with VA reduction and uveitis duration.