Representation of Women in Vitreoretinal Meeting Faculty Roles from 2015 through 2019.

PURPOSE: To describe the proportion of female faculty presenting or moderating at vitreoretinal meetings from 2015 through 2019. DESIGN: Retrospective trend study. SUBJECTS: 6 highly attended annual national vitreoretinal meetings from 2015 to 2019 (30 total meetings) METHODS: Conference programs were acquired either through online search or directly from meeting organizers and were reviewed and analyzed. Genders of program committee members, first author main podium presenters of papers and nonpaper presenters, main podium panelists, and main podium moderators were recorded. A χ2 analysis was performed to compare the proportion of women with podium roles in 2015 and those in each subsequent year until 2019. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: change in proportion of women filling faculty roles in 2015 versus those in 2019. RESULTS: A total of 4,521 faculty roles were included for analysis. Women filled 22.1% of those roles and were more likely to be included as invited moderators or panelists (25.0%) than as paper (21.4%) or non-paper (19.8%) presenters. Meetings with at least one female program committee member were significantly more likely to include female non-paper presenters (P = .02), moderators or panelists (P = .02), and total women faculty (P < .001). Although there were no significant changes in the proportion of women when comparing consecutive years, the overall trend was for an increased proportion of women faculty, with a significant increase from 19.6% in 2015 to 25.5% in 2019 (P = .002). When the types of faculty roles filled by women were examined, there was a statistically significant increase from 2015 to 2019 in the proportion of abstract presentations (19.7% vs. 25.2%, respectively; P = .045) but a nonstatistically significant increase in invited presentations and moderator or panelist roles. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Women filled less than one-fourth of the main podium faculty roles at vitreoretinal meetings included for analysis over a 5-year period, although there was a significant increase in female representation when 2015 and 2019 participation were compared. Meetings with at least 1 female program committee member filled non-paper podium faculty roles with a significantly greater proportion of women.

Trends in Female Authorship in Cornea From 2007 to 2019.

PURPOSE: To identify female authorship trends in first author and last author positions in Cornea from 2007 to 2019. METHODS: First and last authors of all Clinical Science and Basic Investigation publications in Cornea over 13 years were sorted by sex. Identification of sex was based on the author's institutional profile or a Google-based name identifier in cases of equivocal names. The proportion of female board-certified ophthalmologists between 2007 and 2019 was collected from the American Board of Ophthalmology total roster of certified diplomats. RESULTS: First and last author sexes were collected from 2313 publications (1837 Clinical Science and 476 Basic Investigation). Between 2007 and 2019, the percentage of female first authors increased from 30.5% to 41.5%, although this change was not significant (P = 0.240). Female last author percentage increased significantly from 14.9% to 26.6% (P = 0.016). The percentage of female American Board of Ophthalmology-certified diplomats also increased significantly from 17.4% to 24.5% (P < 0.001). Similarly, when comparing 2007 and 2008 with 2018 and 2019, we noted a significant increase in the proportion of women in the last author (P < 0.001) but not in the first author (P = 0.208) position. We also identified a significantly higher proportion of female first authors than that of female board-certified ophthalmologists (P < 0.001). Finally, there was a strong association between first author sex and last author sex (P < 0.001) across manuscripts. CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of women in last author positions increased over 13 years among manuscripts in Cornea. Despite these advances in academic female representation within the cornea subspecialty, a gender gap in authorship persists.

Attitudes, experiences, and preferences of ophthalmic professionals regarding routine use of patient-reported outcome measures in clinical practice.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Routine use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to assess quality of health care systems is mandated in many countries and has been implemented successfully in many specialities. Ophthalmology currently lags behind. To support and inform future implementation, we investigated paediatric ophthalmic clinicians' experience of, and future training needs for, using child-appropriate vision PROMs and their views about the barriers and enablers to future routine implementation in clinical practice. METHODS: We conducted a pilot study, using an online survey to elicit the experience, attitudes, training needs and perceptions of barriers and enablers to routine PROMs use of ophthalmic health professionals in the Paediatric Ophthalmology Department at Great Ormond Street Hospital, London. A focus-group was undertaken to discuss survey results and preferences regarding presentation of PROM data. Analysis comprised descriptive statistics, presented alongside complementary qualitative data. RESULTS: Eighteen clinicians in the department completed the survey. Twenty-seven took part in the focus group. Clinicians had limited experience of using PROMs but high confidence in the potential positive impact on communication with patients, monitoring chronic conditions and clinical decision-making. Clinicians identified operational issues (collection and analysis of data) and impact (interpretation and application of data) as the two key areas for consideration. Training and information requirements before implementation were clearly articulated, alongside the benefits of using digital/electronic data capture ahead of consultations to allow efficiency and automated analysis, and presentation in an appropriate visual format alongside clinical data to ensure meaningful use. CONCLUSION: The findings of this pilot study of ophthalmic clinicians working in a specialist paediatric ophthalmology department, suggest that ophthalmic clinicians recognise the potential benefits of routine PROMs use in clinical practice. Together with existing literature outside ophthalmology relating to overcoming barriers and exploiting enablers to routine implementation, findings may be applicable in planning routine PROM implementation in paediatric ophthalmology.

Reivindicando la validez del oftalmólogo general. Homenaje al Dr. Li Wenliang (1986-2020) / Vindicating the general ophthalmologist. Tribute to Dr. Li Wenliang (1986-2020)

No disponible

National Trends in the United States Eye Care Workforce from 1995 to 2017.

PURPOSE: To describe temporal and geographic trends in the US eye care workforce. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: We obtained data from the 2017 Area Health Resources File. The main outcomes were ophthalmologist and optometrist density, as defined as the number of providers per 100,000 individuals, the ratio of ophthalmologists ≥55 years of age to those <55 years of age, and county characteristics associated with the availability of an ophthalmologist. RESULTS: From 1995 to 2017, the national ophthalmologist density decreased from 6.30 to 5.68 ophthalmologists per 100,000 individuals. Although rural counties experienced a mean annual increase in ophthalmologist density by 2.26%, they still had a lower mean ophthalmologist density (0.58/100,000 individuals) compared with nonmetropolitan (2.19/100,000 individuals) and metropolitan counties (6.29/100,000 individuals) in 2017. The ratio of older to younger ophthalmologists increased from 0.37 in 1995 to 0.82 in 2017, with the greatest ratio increase occurring in rural counties (0.29 to 1.90). The presence of an ophthalmologist was significantly associated with a greater proportion of individuals with a college degree and health insurance, and more developed health care infrastructure. From 1990 to 2017, the density of optometrists increased from 11.06 to 16.16 optometrists per 100,000 individuals. CONCLUSIONS: Over the last 2 decades, the national density of ophthalmologists has decreased and the workforce has aged. In contrast, the density of optometrists has increased. Rural counties continue to have a disproportionately lower supply of eye care providers, although some growth has occurred. Given the rising ratio of optometrists to ophthalmologists, it is of interest for future work to determine how the optometrist workforce can best complement potential shortages of ophthalmologists.

Gender of Presenters at Ophthalmology Conferences Between 2015 and 2017.

PURPOSE: To analyze the proportion of women presenting at 9 major ophthalmology conferences over 3 years. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. METHODS: Conference brochures from 9 national ophthalmology conferences from 2015 to 2017 were analyzed. Genders of first author presenters of papers and non-papers (moderators, presenters at symposia, panel discussions, workshops/instructional courses) were recorded. Comparisons were made to the gender ratio of board-certified ophthalmologists. Student t test and Cochran-Armitage trend test was used for analysis, with significance at P < .05. RESULTS: Of 14,214 speakers, 30.5% were female, statistically higher than the expected 25.4% (P < .001). Paper presenters were 33.1% female (P < .001) and non-paper presenters were 28.5% female (P < .001). When stratified to general or subspecialty conference, general conferences had a higher proportion of women compared to the American Board of Ophthalmology (ABO) expected rates (P < .001) for paper and non-paper presentations. The rates of female presenters increased over the 3 years only at the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (P = .009). Subgroup analysis showed that women presented 33.1% of papers but only 28.5% of non-paper presentations, which is lower than expected (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Our results highlight positive trends: the overall proportions of female speakers exceed ABO estimates of female ophthalmologists. However, the gender gap remains at many subspecialty conferences, especially for non-papers, which are more likely to require invitations rather than being self-submitted. As demographics continue to change, further efforts are needed to assure equitable selection of conference presenters.

Gender-Specific Trends in Ophthalmologist Medicare Collections.

PURPOSE: To assess the factors influencing the Medicare collections disparity between male and female ophthalmologists. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. METHODS: The Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Data from 2012-2015 were combined with the 2015 Physician Compare National Downloadable file and US Census data. Three complementary regression models were generated for number of patients seen, number of services performed per patient, and the amount collected per service. Predictor variables included gender, calendar year, geography, years since medical school graduation, and subspecialty. RESULTS: After adjusting for age, geography, and subspecialty, women ophthalmologists collected 42% less as compared to male ophthalmologists, with the median male ophthalmologist out-earning the 75th-percentile female ophthalmologist across almost all age groups, practice categories, and geographic regions. Although women are entering more lucrative subspecialties (cataract and retina) at a higher rate than before, the percentage of women pursuing these subspecialties remains lower than that of men. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with men, women ophthalmologists see fewer patients and have lower Medicare collections. The observed gender gap in collections was highly persistent across years in practice, subspecialty, and geographic region. Future studies are warranted to examine whether the observed gender collections gap results from structural inequities, social circumstances, or personal choices.

Trends in Retina Specialist Imaging Utilization from 2012 to 2016 in the United States Medicare Fee-for-Service Population.

PURPOSE: To characterize temporal trends and regional variance in retinal imaging utilization in the United States Medicare fee-for-service population from 2012-2016. DESIGN: Cross-sectional, retrospective database analysis. METHODS: This study addresses office or operating-room based retinal imaging. Our study population included retina specialists, defined as ophthalmologists performing either intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor injections or posterior segment laser photocoagulation and no neodymium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet laser capsulotomy. We recorded fundus photography, optical coherence tomography (OCT), intravenous fluorescein angiography (IVFA), indocyanine-green angiography, and ophthalmic ultrasound (B-scan) billed in the Medicare fee-for-service population from 2012-2016. Imaging obtained on any platform or device was eligible for inclusion (eg, posterior pole imaging vs ultrawidefield imaging). The main outcome measure was the relative utilization of retinal imaging modalities. RESULTS: National relative utilization of OCT increased from 61.5% in 2012 to 70.5% in 2016 (P < .001), while IVFA fell from 20.9% to 15.1% over the same interval (P < .001). Fundus photography decreased from 14.6% in 2012 to 11.7% in 2016 (P < .001). By 2016, the Midwest region had the highest relative utilization of OCT (75.2%) and lowest of IVFA (12.0%), while the West region had the lowest OCT (68.4%) and highest IVFA (17.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Among retina specialists, OCT usage increased while the utilization of fundus photography and IVFA has declined. The Midwest region had the highest utilization of OCT and lowest of IVFA.

Current Practice Preferences and Safety Protocols for Intravitreal Injection of Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Agents.

PURPOSE: To assess current practice preferences and safety measures used for intravitreal injection (IVI) of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) medications and to assess the variability of practice patterns between academic and nonacademic and between early- and later-career ophthalmologists. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. PARTICIPANTS: Practicing retina specialists who administer intravitreal anti-VEGF injections from the membership pool of the American Society of Retina Specialists. METHODS: Participants were contacted by e-mail to participate in an anonymous 31-question survey on a common online platform, SurveyMonkey. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Preferred practices for various aspects of administering IVIs and adherence to the most recently published guidelines on IVI techniques. RESULTS: Preinjection antibiotic drops were used always or often by 10.9% (43/396) of participants. Antibiotics after injection were used always or often by 16.6% (66/398) of participants. Longer (>15 years) compared with shorter (0-15 years) duration of practice was associated with always or often instilling preinjection antibiotics (13.7% vs. 6.7%; P = 0.028), scrubbing eyelids or lashes with antiseptic (43.6% vs. 30.5%; P = 0.008), and being less likely to instill antiseptic immediately before injection (89.7% vs. 95.7%; P = 0.029). Practicing for more than 25 years was associated with always or often instilling antibiotics after injection (22.5% vs. 13.3%; P = 0.017). Academic compared with nonacademic providers were more likely to wear a cap (16.3% vs. 6.8%; P = 0.006), mask (43.0% vs. 29.9%; P = 0.022), and gloves (64.0% vs. 52.1%; P = 0.050) and to drape the patient (17.4% vs. 9.1%; P = 0.027). CONCLUSIONS: Techniques for IVIs vary widely. Use of periprocedure antibiotics has declined, consistent with new evidence demonstrating lack of efficacy in endophthalmitis prevention as well as their potential harm. However, later-career physicians were more likely to continue to use antibiotics and other techniques advised against in the most recent recommendations of expert consensus groups in the United States and Europe. Academic practitioners were more likely to use protective wear during the procedure.

Real-World Trends in Intravitreal Injection Practices among American Retina Specialists.

PURPOSE: To analyze practice patterns used for intravitreal injections (IVIs) by retinal specialists in the United States. DESIGN: Cross-sectional online survey. PARTICIPANTS: Retina specialists in the United States who responded to a web-based survey. METHODS: Retinal specialists in the United States were contacted via e-mail to complete a web-based, anonymous, 24-question survey. Multivariate analysis was performed on a selected question of interest focused on choice of anesthetic used for IVI. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Differences in IVI practices, such as antibiotic preferences, and different odds of anesthetic use by demographic variables with 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: A total of 281 retinal specialists responded to the survey (17% response rate). Respondents' average age was 53 years, with an average of 20 years in practice. Respondents practiced in 42 states, with 90% practicing in an urban or suburban area. For anesthesia, 14% used a topical anesthetic with cotton swab compression, 27% used a subconjunctival anesthetic, and 31% used an anesthetic gel. Age, gender, geographic location, and practice setting did not seem to impact choice of anesthetic for IVI significantly. Sixty-six percent of respondents always use a lid speculum, 21% administer topical antibiotics before injection, 36% wear a mask, 73% wear gloves, and 45% always dilate the eyes before injection. Most respondents use a 30-gauge needle and inject in the inferior temporal quadrant (70%). Forty-five percent always perform bilateral injections the same day if indicated. After the injection, 14% administer post operative nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, 28% administer postoperative antibiotics, and 31% routinely check intraocular pressure after injection. CONCLUSIONS: This study provided real-world trends in practices for IVI among retina specialists in the United States. In addition, age, gender, practice type, and geographic location did not influence anesthetic choice for IVI.

Changes in Australian practice patterns for glaucoma management.

IMPORTANCE: The demand for glaucoma care is projected to increase significantly with the ageing population. BACKGROUND: To characterize trends in Australian practice patterns for glaucoma management over the 15-y period between 2003 and 2017. DESIGN: Retrospective audit. SAMPLES: The Medicare eligible population. METHODS: Audit of Medicare Benefits Schedule item number reimbursements in the private healthcare sector, and dispensed Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) prescriptions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number, unadjusted cost and services per capita in the enrolled population. RESULTS: The number of medication prescriptions peaked in 2015, but then declined by 14.9%. PBS expenditure on glaucoma medications has been falling since 2012. There was a 9.2-fold increase in fixed-combination prescriptions and 281-fold increase in unpreserved medication prescriptions. In 2017, optometrists generated 1.86% of glaucoma prescriptions. Reimbursements for computerized perimetry increased dramatically for optometrists, and in 2017 optometrist-initiated perimetry exceeded ophthalmologist-initiated perimetry by 35.3%. There were significant increases in laser procedure rates, including laser trabeculoplasty (4.61-fold), laser iridotomy (2.55-fold) and cyclodestructive procedures (2.33-fold). There was a 3.83-fold increase in glaucoma drainage device insertions. Ab interno trabecular microbypass procedures increased 715% from 2014 to 2017. Adjusted for Medicare population, trabecular microbypass is performed at more than twice the rate of primary filtering operations. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This is the first time that glaucoma medication use and expenditure have declined since auditing began in 1992. Glaucoma laser procedures, drainage device implantation and trabecular microbypass increased substantially over the study period. In contrast, the rate of primary filtering operations increased in proportion to population growth. The increase in overall cost of glaucoma care has primarily been driven by computerized perimetry; however, this has been partially offset by a decline in medication expenditure.

Vision and the Nobel Prize.

The Nobel Prize is the world's foremost honor for scientific advances in medicine and other areas. Founded by Alfred Nobel, the prizes have been awarded annually since 1901. We reviewed the literature on persons who have won or competed for this prize in subjects related to vision and ophthalmology. The topics were divided into vision physiology, diagnostic and therapeutic methods, disease mechanism, and miscellaneous categories. Allvar Gullstrand is the only ophthalmologist to win a Nobel Prize; he is also the only one to receive it for work in ophthalmology. Other ophthalmologists that have been nominated were Hjalmar Schiötz (tonometer), Karl Koller (topical anesthesia), and Jules Gonin (retinal detachment). Other scientists have won the prize for eye-related research: Ragnar Granit, Haldan Hartline and George Wald (chemistry and physiology of vision), and David Hubel and Torsten Wiesel (processing in the visual system). Peter Medawar is the only person born in Brazil to have won the Nobel Prize.

Vision and the Nobel Prize / A visão e Prêmio Nobel

ABSTRACT The Nobel Prize is the world's foremost honor for scientific advances in medicine and other areas. Founded by Alfred Nobel, the prizes have been awarded annually since 1901. We reviewed the literature on persons who have won or competed for this prize in subjects related to vision and ophthalmology. The topics were divided into vision physiology, diagnostic and therapeutic methods, disease mechanism, and miscellaneous categories. Allvar Gullstrand is the only ophthalmologist to win a Nobel Prize; he is also the only one to receive it for work in ophthalmology. Other ophthalmologists that have been nominated were Hjalmar Schiötz (tonometer), Karl Koller (topical anesthesia), and Jules Gonin (retinal detachment). Other scientists have won the prize for eye-related research: Ragnar Granit, Haldan Hartline and George Wald (chemistry and physiology of vision), and David Hubel and Torsten Wiesel (processing in the visual system). Peter Medawar is the only person born in Brazil to have won the Nobel Prize.

RESUMO O Prêmio Nobel é a principal honraria do mundo para avanços científicos em medicina e outras áreas. Fundada por Alfred Nobel, os prêmios são concedidos anualmente desde 1901. Revisamos a literatura sobre pessoas que ganharam ou competiram por esse prêmio em assuntos relacionados à visão e oftalmologia. Os tópicos foram divididos em fisiologia da visão, métodos diagnósticos e terapêuticos, mecanismo de doenças e variados. Allvar Gullstrand não é o único oftalmologista a ganhar um Nobel, porém é o único a recebê-lo por contribuições na oftalmologia. Outros oftalmologistas foram nomeados: Hjalmar Schiötz (tonometro), Karl Koller (anestesia tópica) e Jules Gonin (descolamento da retina). Outros cientistas ganharam o prêmio com pesquisas relacionadas à visão: Ragnar Granit, Haldan Hartline e George Wald (química e fisiologia da visão); David Hubel e Torsten Wiesel (processamento no sistema visual). Peter Medawar é a única pessoa que nasceu no Brasil a ganhar o prêmio.