Social Determinants of Dry Eye in the United States: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: To conduct a systematic review to summarize current evidence on associations between social determinants of health (SDOH) indicators and dry eye in the United States. DESIGN: Systematic review. METHODS: We followed a protocol registered on Open Science Framework to include studies that examined associations between SDOH indicators and dry eye. We mapped SDOH indicators to 1 of the 5 domains following the Healthy People 2030 framework and categorized dry eye measures into "dry eye diagnosis and care," "dry eye symptoms," or "ocular surface parameters." We summarized the direction of association between SDOH indicators and dry eye as worsening, beneficial, or null. We used items from the Newcastle Ottawa Scale to assess risk of bias. RESULTS: Eighteen studies reporting 51 SDOH indicators, mostly mapped to the neighborhood and built environment domain, were included. Thirteen studies were judged at high risk of bias. Fifteen of 19 (79%) associations revealed an increase in the diagnosis of dry eye or delayed specialty care for it. Thirty-four of 56 (61%) associations unveiled exacerbated dry eye symptoms. Fifteen of 23 (65%) found null associations with corneal fluorescein staining. Ten of 22 (45%) associations revealed an increased tear break up time (45%) whereas another 10 (45%) showed null associations. CONCLUSIONS: Most SDOH indicators studied were associated with unfavorable dry eye measures, such as a higher disease burden, worse symptoms, or delayed referral, in the United States. Future investigations between SDOH and dry eye should use standardized instruments and address the domains in which there is an evidence gap.

Risk Factors for Vision Loss among Nursing Home Residents: A Cross-Sectional Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Approximately 2% of older adults currently live in nursing homes. It is important that the risks for vision loss be characterized to ensure appropriate vision care is provided for nursing home patients. Our objective was to evaluate the association of age-related eye diseases (AREDs) and multimorbidities with vision loss. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: This is a cross-sectional analysis of comprehensive eye examination records for 7753 residents of 74 North Carolina nursing homes who were ≥65 years of age at time of the initial patient visit. METHODS: Complete data on vision and associated factors were included from the standardized Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services eye examination. We defined vision impairment and blindness respectively as best-corrected visual acuity between 20/40 and 20/200, and 20/200 or worse. Clinical diagnoses of AREDs were defined by the attending clinician. Data were extracted from electronic health records, and all analyses were conducted in SAS v 9.4. We used descriptive statistics to summarize the resident characteristics and AREDs and logistic regression analysis to examine independent risk factors for vision impairment. RESULTS: A total of 7753 initial eye examination records with complete data were included in the analysis. Overall, 34% of the residents had normal vision, 43% had vision impairment, and 23% were blind. Among participants with various AREDs, the prevalence of vision impaired/blind ranged from 63% to 76%, while blindness ranged from 23% to 53%. We found correction of refractive error alone served to reduce vision impairment or blindness. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Comprehensive eye examinations showed vision impairment and blindness affected 66% of nursing home residents, overall. This study substantiates the positive impact of comprehensive eye examinations to promote visual, systemic, and cognitive health and well-being and the need that eye care service be used to inform policy and practice to improve patient functioning and independence.

Assessment of Duplicate Publication of Chinese-Sponsored Randomized Clinical Trials.

Importance: Duplicate publications of randomized clinical trials are prevalent in the health-related literature. To date, few studies have assessed the interaction between duplicate publication and the language of the original publication. Objective: To assess the existence of duplicate publication and the extent to which duplicate publication is associated with the language of the original publication. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this retrospective cohort study, eligible randomized clinical trials were retrieved from trial registries, and bibliographic databases were searched to determine their publication status. Eligible randomized clinical trials were for drug interventions from January 1, 2008, to December 31, 2014. The search and analysis were conducted from March 1 to August 31, 2019. The trial registries were either primary registries recognized by the World Health Organization or the Drug Clinical Trial Registry Platform sponsored by the China Food and Drug Administration. Exposures: Individual randomized clinical trials with positive vs negative results. Main Outcomes and Measures: Journal articles were classified as main articles (determined by largest sample size and longest follow-up among all journal articles derived from that randomized clinical trial) and duplicates. The duplicates were classified into 4 types: (1) unreferenced subgroup analysis (article did not disclose itself as a subgroup analysis or reference its main article); (2) unreferenced republication (article did not disclose itself as a replicate of the main article or reference it); (3) unreferenced interim analysis (article did not disclose itself as an interim analysis or reference its main article); and (4) partial duplicate (article did not disclose its sharing a subset of participants with other articles or reference them). Results: Among 470 randomized clinical trials published by August 2019 as journal articles, 55 (11.7%) had 75 duplicates, of which 53 (70.7%) were cross-language duplicates. Of the 75 duplicates, 33 (44.0%) were unreferenced republications, 25 (33.3%) unreferenced subgroup analyses, 15 (20.0%) unreferenced interim analyses, and 2 (2.7%) partial duplicates. When the main article of a randomized clinical trial was published in Chinese, those with positive findings were 2.48 (95% CI, 1.08-5.71) times more likely to have subsequent duplicate publication than those with negative findings. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, most duplicates were cross-language duplicates and the most common type was unreferenced republication of the main article. Duplicate publication bias exists when the main articles of randomized clinical trials were published in Chinese, potentially misleading readers and compromising journals and evidence synthesis.

A validation study comparing the sensitivity and specificity of the new Dr. KSU H1N1 RT-PCR kit with real-time RT-PCR for diagnosing influenza A (H1N1).

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: A new test (Dr. KSU H1N1 RT-PCR kit) was recently developed to provide a less expensive alternative to real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). We report the findings of a validation study designed to assess the diagnostic accuracy, including sensitivity and specificity, of the new kit, as compared to real-time RT-PCR. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cross-sectional validation study conducted from 18-22 November 2009 at a primary care clinic for H1N1 at a tertiary care teaching hospital in Riyadh. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Nasopharyngeal swab samples and data on socio-demographic characteristics and symptoms were collected from 186 patients. Swab samples were sent to the laboratory for testing with both real-time RT-PCR and the new Dr. KSU H1N1 RT-PCR kit. We measured the sensitivity and specificity of the new test across the entire sample size and investigated how these values were affected by patient socio-demographic characteristics and symptoms. RESULTS: The outcomes of the two tests were highly correlated (kappa=0.85; P<.0001). The sensitivity and specificity of the new test were 99.11% and 83.78%, respectively. The sensitivity of the new test was affected only minimally (96%-100%) by patient characteristics and number of symptoms. On the other hand, the specificity of the new test varied depending on how soon patients were tested after onset of symptoms (100% specificity when swabs were taken on the first day of the symptoms, decreasing to 75% when swabs were taken on or after the third day). The specificity of the new test also increased with increasing body temperature. CONCLUSION: The new test seems to provide a cost-effective alternative to real-time RT-PCR for diagnosing H1N1 influenza. However, further testing may be needed to verify the efficacy of the test in different settings and communities.