Publication outcome of abstracts submitted to the American Academy of Ophthalmology meeting.

OBJECTIVE: Abstracts submitted to meetings are subject to less rigorous peer review than full-text manuscripts. This study aimed to explore the publication outcome of abstracts presented at the American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO) annual meeting. METHODS: Abstracts presented at the 2008 AAO meeting were analyzed. Each presented abstract was sought via PubMed to identify if it had been published as a full-text manuscript. The publication outcome, journal impact factor (IF), and time to publication were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 690 abstracts were reviewed, of which 39.1% were subsequently published. They were published in journals with a median IF of 2.9 (range 0-7.2) and a median publication time of 426 days (range 0-2,133 days). A quarter were published in the journal Ophthalmology, with a shorter time to publication (median 282 vs. 534 days, p=0.003). Oral presentations were more likely to be published than poster presentations (57.8% vs. 35.9%, p<0.001) and in journals with higher IFs (3.2 vs. 2.8, p=0.02). Abstracts describing rare diseases had higher publication rates (49.4% vs. 38.0%, p=0.04) and were published in higher IF journals (3.7 vs. 2.9, p=0.03), within a shorter period of time (358 vs. 428 days, p=0.03). In multivariate analysis, affiliation with an institute located in the United States (p=0.002), abstracts describing rare diseases (p=0.03), and funded studies (p=0.03) were associated with publication in higher IF journals. CONCLUSIONS: Almost 40% of abstracts were published. Factors that correlated with publication in journals with higher IF were a focus on rare diseases, affiliation with a US institute, and funding.

Assessment of dry eye disease in N95 versus surgical face mask wearers during COVID-19.

Purpose: Investigating the effect of different face masks on dry eye disease (DED) among healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: This was a comparative, cross-sectional study. Participants were included into two groups: group 1 (n = 30) wore surgical masks, and group 2 (n = 30) wore N95 masks with face shields. Demographic and ocular surface disease index questionnaires (OSDI) were performed. In addition, Tear break-up time (TBUT), corneal and conjunctival fluorescein staining, and meibography to assess meibomian gland loss (MGL) were performed on all participants. Independent T-test was used to compare continuous parameters and Chi-square test for categorical variables. The relationship between continuous variables was tested using bivariate Pearson correlation. Results: Sixty healthcare workers participated in this study (36 females and 24 males). The mean (±SD) age of the surgical mask and N95 groups was 35.33 (±14.94) and 36.63 (±10.64) years, respectively. Both masks caused dryness according to TBUT, MGL, and OSDI scores. DED per DEWS II definition was observed in 14 (46.7%) and 16 (53.3%) patients in groups 1 and 2, respectively. Comparing the two groups, N95 mask caused significantly more dryness according to TBUT (P = 0.042) and fluorescein staining (P = 0.038 for the right eye and P = 0.015 for the left eye). Conclusion: Physicians should be aware of the potential dry eye signs secondary to face mask wear during the COVID-19 pandemic. Further attention should be taken in patients who suffer from preexisting dry eye syndrome and in patients who undergo intraocular operations.