Visual, ocular surface, and extraocular diagnostic criteria for determining the prevalence of computer vision syndrome: a cross-sectional smart-survey-based study.

Background: The American Optometric Association defines computer vision syndrome (CVS), also known as digital eye strain, as "a group of eye- and vision-related problems that result from prolonged computer, tablet, e-reader and cell phone use". We aimed to create a well-structured, valid, and reliable questionnaire to determine the prevalence of CVS, and to analyze the visual, ocular surface, and extraocular sequelae of CVS using a novel and smart self-assessment questionnaire. Methods: This multicenter, observational, cross-sectional, descriptive, survey-based, online study included 6853 complete online responses of medical students from 15 universities. All participants responded to the updated, online, fourth version of the CVS questionnaire (CVS-F4), which has high validity and reliability. CVS was diagnosed according to five basic diagnostic criteria (5DC) derived from the CVS-F4. Respondents who fulfilled the 5DC were considered CVS cases. The 5DC were then converted into a novel five-question self-assessment questionnaire designated as the CVS-Smart. Results: Of 10 000 invited medical students, 8006 responded to the CVS-F4 survey (80% response rate), while 6853 of the 8006 respondents provided complete online responses (85.6% completion rate). The overall CVS prevalence was 58.78% (n = 4028) among the study respondents; CVS prevalence was higher among women (65.87%) than among men (48.06%). Within the CVS group, the most common visual, ocular surface, and extraocular complaints were eye strain, dry eye, and neck/shoulder/back pain in 74.50% (n = 3001), 58.27% (n = 2347), and 80.52% (n = 3244) of CVS cases, respectively. Notably, 75.92% (3058/4028) of CVS cases were involved in the Mandated Computer System Use Program. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that the two most statistically significant diagnostic criteria of the 5DC were ≥2 symptoms/attacks per month over the last 12 months (odds ratio [OR] = 204177.2; P <0.0001) and symptoms/attacks associated with screen use (OR = 16047.34; P <0.0001). The CVS-Smart demonstrated a Cronbach's alpha reliability coefficient of 0.860, Guttman split-half coefficient of 0.805, with perfect content and construct validity. A CVS-Smart score of 7-10 points indicated the presence of CVS. Conclusions: The visual, ocular surface, and extraocular diagnostic criteria for CVS constituted the basic components of CVS-Smart. CVS-Smart is a novel, valid, reliable, subjective instrument for determining CVS diagnosis and prevalence and may provide a tool for rapid periodic assessment and prognostication. Individuals with positive CVS-Smart results should consider modifying their lifestyles and screen styles and seeking the help of ophthalmologists and/or optometrists. Higher institutional authorities should consider revising the Mandated Computer System Use Program to avoid the long-term consequences of CVS among university students. Further research must compare CVS-Smart with other available metrics for CVS, such as the CVS questionnaire, to determine its test-retest reliability and to justify its widespread use.

Analysis of the Outcomes of Combined Cross-Linking with Intracorneal Ring Segment Implantation for the Treatment of Pediatric Keratoconus.

PURPOSE: To analyze the visual and refractive outcomes of combined accelerated cross-linking with femtosecond laser intracorneal ring segment implantation for the treatment of pediatric keratoconus. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective multicenter noncomparative clinical study included 63 eyes of 37 patients (age, 9-17 years) who underwent between August and September 2016 combined cross-linking with intracorneal ring segment implantation for keratoconus. Preoperative and postoperative (6, 12, and 18 months) uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) and corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), subjective refractions, keratometry (K), and pachymetry measurements were compared. RESULTS: The postoperative spherical equivalent refraction was within ±1 D, ±2 D, and ±3 D in 19 (30.2%), 27 (42.9%), and 37 (58.8%) eyes, respectively. Only 27 eyes achieved the attempted preoperative spherical equivalent refraction. The mean spherical equivalent refraction significantly improved from -6.01 ± 2.97 to -3.13 ± 2.78 D postoperatively (P < 0.0001). The mean K average reading significantly decreased from 48.75 ± 4.25 to 46.65 ± 3.89 D postoperatively (P < 0.0001). The mean postoperative myopic, astigmatic, and spherical equivalent corrections were -2.17 ± 2.19, -1.52 ± 2.03, and -2.93 ± 2.35 D, respectively. The mean UDVA and CDVA showed significant improvements (0.89 ± 0.33 to 0.40 ± 0.28, P < 0.0001; 0.35 ± 0.31 to 0.25 ± 0.24, P = 0.004; respectively) at 18 months postoperatively. Keratoconus progression, segment migration, and segment extrusion were seen in four (6.4%), one (1.6%), and three (4.7%) eyes, respectively, probably contributing to the lower mean postoperative CDVA. CONCLUSION: Cross-linking plus is only partially effective for pediatric keratoconus. Despite some improvements in vision and keratometry measures, it resulted in complications such as keratoconus progression, segment extrusion, and segment migration that affected the vision in some patients. These findings suggest an assessment of standard epithelium-off collagen cross-linking as a sole procedure to treat pediatric keratoconus in future studies.

Standard cross-linking versus photorefractive keratectomy combined with accelerated cross-linking for keratoconus management: a comparative study.

PURPOSE: To compare the safety and efficacy of standard 30 min epithelium-off cross-linking (CXL) versus photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) combined with accelerated epithelium-off cross-linking (AXL) for the treatment of progressive keratoconus (CXL-Plus). METHODS: This study was a prospective multicentre comparative clinical study. A total of 125 eyes of 75 patients with grade 1 keratoconus and documented progression were divided into two groups. Group A included 58 eyes treated with standard CXL. Group B included 67 eyes treated with combined PRK and AXL. The recorded data included UDVA, CDVA, subjective and objective refraction, keratometry and pachymetry using corneal topographies preoperatively and postoperatively at 3, 6, 12 and 24 months of follow-up. RESULTS: In group A, at 24 months of UDVA and CDVA were improved from 1.12 ± 0.38 and 0.58 ± 0.42 to 0.66 ± 0.20 and 0.20 ± 0.12 (LogMAR±SD). The spherical equivalent was reduced from 4.03 ± 1.18 to 1.78 ± 1.04 D. The cylinder reduction was 0.32 ± 0.19 D. In group B, at 24 months of UDVA and CDVA were improved from 1.26 ± 0.52 and 0.68 ± 0.36 to 0.58 ± 0.28 and 0.20 ± 0.16 (LogMAR ± SD). The spherical equivalent was reduced from 4.23 ± 0.95 to 1.92 ± 0.74 D. The cylinder reduction was ±1.76 D. CONCLUSION: Surprisingly, standard CXL showed close results to CXL-Plus at the 24th follow-up month. Standard CXL acted as a stabilizing procedure associated with a late myopic component reduction. CXL-Plus acted as a refractive and stabilizing procedure with an early effect on both the myopic and the astigmatic component but no later improvements. Standard CXL seems to be more powerful than AXL in its long-term effect. Therefore, in the future, we want to test the combination of PRK with standard CXL.

Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Cross-Linking Combined With Photorefractive Keratectomy for Treatment of Keratoconus.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of combined epithelium-off cross-linking (CXL) with photorefractive keratectomy (CXL Plus) for correction of the myopic and astigmatic components of keratoconus. METHODS: Seventy-nine eyes of 46 patients who underwent CXL Plus were enrolled in this retrospective, multicenter, noncomparative clinical study. Uncorrected distance visual acuity, corrected distance visual acuity, refraction, keratometry, and pachymetry measurements were recorded preoperatively and at 3, 6, 12, and 18 months during follow-up. RESULTS: The mean (±SD) preoperative uncorrected distance visual acuity and corrected distance visual acuity were 1.00 ± 0.22 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) and 0.62 ± 0.38 logMAR, respectively, and improved to 0.71 ± 0.36 logMAR and 0.32 ± 0.18 logMAR postoperatively. The mean k value, mean corneal thickness at the thinnest location, and mean myopic and astigmatic components decreased from 46.58 ± 0.97 D, 473 ± 29 µm, 3.65 ± 1.72 D, and 1.83 ± 0.69 D preoperatively to 43.79 ± 1.17 D, 431 ± 38 µm, 1.02 ± 0.78 D, and 1.15 ± 0.26 D, respectively, during follow-up. Eleven eyes had delayed epithelial healing, 2 had stromal opacities, 1 had primary herpes simplex keratitis, and 5 showed progression of keratoconus. CONCLUSIONS: CXL Plus improved the refractive status of keratoconus during 18 months of follow-up, despite its potential early postoperative complications of delayed epithelial healing and corneal haze. CXL Plus reduced the myopic component more than the astigmatic component of keratoconus. However, the safety and stability of the procedure were offset by longer-term postoperative complications and a high rate of postoperative progression of keratoconus.

A multicenter study of the awareness and attitudes of Egyptian faculty towards research ethics: a pilot study.

The awareness and attitudes of faculty towards research ethics committees (RECs) and research ethics practices are largely unknown. Accordingly, we conducted a cross-sectional survey study involving various faculties (Medicine, Nursing, Pharmacy, and Dentistry) from four universities in Egypt. A large majority (> 85%) held positive attitudes towards RECs, but almost a third thought that RECs would delay research. More than half had not received prior training in research or medical ethics, but more than 90% thought that this subject matter should be taught to postgraduates. A large majority recognized the need for informed consent and confidentiality protections in research, but some held attitudes regarding certain research ethics practices that were questionable. We conclude that a curriculum in research ethics should be developed for university faculty and that further qualitative studies should explore the basis of several of the attitudes regarding practices in research ethics.