Dr. Google vs. Dr. ChatGPT: Exploring the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Ophthalmology by Comparing the Accuracy, Safety, and Readability of Responses to Frequently Asked Patient Questions Regarding Cataracts and Cataract Surgery.

PURPOSE: Patients are using online search modalities to learn about their eye health. While Google remains the most popular search engine, the use of large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT has increased. Cataract surgery is the most common surgical procedure in the US, and there is limited data on the quality of online information that populates after searches related to cataract surgery on search engines such as Google and LLM platforms such as ChatGPT. We identified the most common patient frequently asked questions (FAQs) about cataracts and cataract surgery and evaluated the accuracy, safety, and readability of the answers to these questions provided by both Google and ChatGPT. We demonstrated the utility of ChatGPT in writing notes and creating patient education materials. METHODS: The top 20 FAQs related to cataracts and cataract surgery were recorded from Google. Responses to the questions provided by Google and ChatGPT were evaluated by a panel of ophthalmologists for accuracy and safety. Evaluators were also asked to distinguish between Google and LLM chatbot answers. Five validated readability indices were used to assess the readability of responses. ChatGPT was instructed to generate operative notes, post-operative instructions, and customizable patient education materials according to specific readability criteria. RESULTS: Responses to 20 patient FAQs generated by ChatGPT were significantly longer and written at a higher reading level than responses provided by Google (p < .001), with an average grade level of 14.8 (college level). Expert reviewers were correctly able to distinguish between a human-reviewed and chatbot generated response an average of 31% of the time. Google answers contained incorrect or inappropriate material 27% of the time, compared with 6% of LLM generated answers (p < .001). When expert reviewers were asked to compare the responses directly, chatbot responses were favored (66%). CONCLUSIONS: When comparing the responses to patients' cataract FAQs provided by ChatGPT and Google, practicing ophthalmologists overwhelming preferred ChatGPT responses. LLM chatbot responses were less likely to contain inaccurate information. ChatGPT represents a viable information source for eye health for patients with higher health literacy. ChatGPT may also be used by ophthalmologists to create customizable patient education materials for patients with varying health literacy.

Using Natural Language Processing to Identify Different Lens Pathology in Electronic Health Records.

PURPOSE: Nearly all published ophthalmology-related Big Data studies rely exclusively on International Classification of Diseases (ICD) billing codes to identify patients with particular ocular conditions. However, inaccurate or nonspecific codes may be used. We assessed whether natural language processing (NLP), as an alternative approach, could more accurately identify lens pathology. DESIGN: Database study comparing the accuracy of NLP versus ICD billing codes to properly identify lens pathology. METHODS: We developed an NLP algorithm capable of searching free-text lens exam data in the electronic health record (EHR) to identify the type(s) of cataract present, cataract density, presence of intraocular lenses, and other lens pathology. We applied our algorithm to 17.5 million lens exam records in the Sight Outcomes Research Collaborative (SOURCE) repository. We selected 4314 unique lens-exam entries and asked 11 clinicians to assess whether all pathology present in the entries had been correctly identified in the NLP algorithm output. The algorithm's sensitivity at accurately identifying lens pathology was compared with that of the ICD codes. RESULTS: The NLP algorithm correctly identified all lens pathology present in 4104 of the 4314 lens-exam entries (95.1%). For less common lens pathology, algorithm findings were corroborated by reviewing clinicians for 100% of mentions of pseudoexfoliation material and 99.7% for phimosis, subluxation, and synechia. Sensitivity at identifying lens pathology was better for NLP (0.98 [0.96-0.99] than for billing codes (0.49 [0.46-0.53]). CONCLUSIONS: Our NLP algorithm identifies and classifies lens abnormalities routinely documented by eye-care professionals with high accuracy. Such algorithms will help researchers to properly identify and classify ocular pathology, broadening the scope of feasible research using real-world data.

Impact of Type 2 diabetes mellitus and insulin use on progression to glaucoma surgery in primary open angle glaucoma.

PURPOSE: To investigate outcomes of primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) patients with and without type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). METHODS: Retrospective observational study using U.S. nationwide healthcare insurance claims database. Patients ≥40 years old with at least one HbA1c within one year of POAG diagnosis were included. Diabetic factors associated with POAG progression requiring glaucoma surgery were evaluated using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models adjusted for demographic, diabetic and glaucoma factors. T2DM diagnosis and use of either oral hypoglycaemic agents or insulin therapy were assessed in association with POAG progression requiring glaucoma surgery. RESULTS: 104,515 POAG patients were included, of which 70,315 (67%) had T2DM. The mean age was 68.9 years (Standard deviation 9.2) and 55% were female. Of those with T2DM, 93% were taking medication (65,468); 95% (62,412) taking oral hypoglycaemic agents, and 34% (22,028) were on insulin. In multivariable analyses, patients with T2DM had a higher hazard of requiring glaucoma surgery (Hazard ratio, HR 1.15, 95% CI 1.09-1.21, p < 0.001). Higher mean HbA1c was also a significant predictor of progression requiring glaucoma surgery (HR 1.02, 95% CI 1.01-1.03, p < 0.001). When evaluating only patients who were taking antidiabetic medication, after adjusting for confounders, insulin use was associated with a 1.20 higher hazard of requiring glaucoma surgery compared to oral hypoglycaemic agents (95% CI 1.14-1.27, p < 0.001), but when stratified by HbA1c, this effect was only significant for those with HbA1c > 7.5%. CONCLUSIONS: Higher baseline HbA1c, particularly in patients taking insulin may be associated with higher rates of glaucoma surgery in POAG.

Evaluating Visual Acuity in the American Academy of Ophthalmology IRIS® Registry.

Objective: To describe visual acuity data representation in the American Academy of Ophthalmology Intelligent Research in Sight (IRIS) Registry and present a data-cleaning strategy. Design: Reliability and validity study. Participants: Patients with visual acuity records from 2018 in the IRIS Registry. Methods: Visual acuity measurements and metadata were identified and characterized from 2018 IRIS Registry records. Metadata, including laterality, assessment method (distance, near, and unspecified), correction (corrected, uncorrected, and unspecified), and flags for refraction or pinhole assessment were compared between Rome (frozen April 20, 2020) and Chicago (frozen December 24, 2021) versions. We developed a data-cleaning strategy to infer patients' corrected distance visual acuity in their better-seeing eye. Main Outcome Measures: Visual acuity data characteristics in the IRIS Registry. Results: The IRIS Registry Chicago data set contains 168 920 049 visual acuity records among 23 001 531 unique patients and 49 968 974 unique patient visit dates in 2018. Visual acuity records were associated with refraction in 5.3% of cases, and with pinhole in 11.0%. Mean (standard deviation) of all measurements was 0.26 (0.41) logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR), with a range of - 0.3 to 4.0 A plurality of visual acuity records were labeled corrected (corrected visual acuity [CVA], 39.1%), followed by unspecified (37.6%) and uncorrected (uncorrected visual acuity [UCVA], 23.4%). Corrected visual acuity measurements were paradoxically worse than same day UCVA 15% of the time. In aggregate, mean and median values were similar for CVA and unspecified visual acuity. Most visual acuity measurements were at distance (59.8%, vs. 32.1% unspecified and 8.2% near). Rome contained more duplicate visual acuity records than Chicago (10.8% vs. 1.4%). Near visual acuity was classified with Jaeger notation and (in Chicago only) also assigned logMAR values by Verana Health. LogMAR values for hand motion and light perception visual acuity were lower in Chicago than in Rome. The impact of data entry errors or outliers on analyses may be reduced by filtering and averaging visual acuity per eye over time. Conclusions: The IRIS Registry includes similar visual acuity metadata in Rome and Chicago. Although fewer duplicate records were found in Chicago, both versions include duplicate and atypical measurements (i.e., CVA worse than UCVA on the same day). Analyses may benefit from using algorithms to filter outliers and average visual acuity measurements over time. Financial Disclosures: Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

Identifying Strategies to Reduce Low-Value Preoperative Testing for Low-Risk Procedures: a Qualitative Study of Facilities with High or Recently Improved Levels of Testing.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare agencies and perioperative professional organizations recommend avoiding preoperative screening tests for low-risk surgical procedures. However, low-value preoperative tests are still commonly ordered even for generally healthy patients and active strategies to reduce this testing have not been adequately described. OBJECTIVE: We sought to learn from hospitals with either high levels of testing or that had recently reduced use of low-value screening tests (aka "delta sites") about reasons for testing and active deimplementation strategies they used to effectively improve practice. DESIGN: Qualitative study of semi-structured telephone interviews. PARTICIPANTS: We identified facilities in the US Veterans Health Administration (VHA) with high or recently improved burden of potentially low-value preoperative testing for carpal tunnel release and cataract surgery. We recruited perioperative clinicians to participate. APPROACH: Questions focused on reasons to order preoperative screening tests for patients undergoing low-risk surgery and, more importantly, what strategies had been successfully used to reduce testing. A framework method was used to identify common improvement strategies and specific care delivery innovations. KEY RESULTS: Thirty-five perioperative clinicians (e.g., hand surgeons, ophthalmologists, anesthesiologists, primary care providers, directors of preoperative clinics, nurses) from 29 VHA facilities participated. Facilities that successfully reduced the burden of low-value testing shared many improvement strategies (e.g., building consensus among stakeholders; using evidence/norm-based education and persuasion; clarifying responsibility for ordering tests) to implement different care delivery innovations (e.g., pre-screening to decide if a preop clinic evaluation is necessary; establishing a dedicated preop clinic for low-risk procedures). CONCLUSIONS: We identified a menu of common improvement strategies and specific care delivery innovations that might be helpful for institutions trying to design their own quality improvement programs to reduce low-value preoperative testing given their unique structure, resources, and constraints.

United States Population Disparities in Ophthalmic Care: Blindness and Visual Impairment in the IRIS® Registry (Intelligent Research in Sight).

PURPOSE: To evaluate associations of patient characteristics with United States eye care use and likelihood of blindness. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. PARTICIPANTS: Patients (19 546 016) with 2018 visual acuity (VA) records in the American Academy of Ophthalmology's IRIS® Registry (Intelligent Research in Sight). METHODS: Legal blindness (20/200 or worse) and visual impairment (VI; worse than 20/40) were identified from corrected distance acuity in the better-seeing eye and stratified by patient characteristics. Multivariable logistic regressions evaluated associations with blindness and VI. Blindness was mapped by state and compared with population characteristics. Eye care use was analyzed by comparing population demographics with United States Census estimates and proportional demographic representation among blind patients versus a nationally representative US population sample (National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey [NHANES]). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prevalence and odds ratios for VI and blindness; proportional representation in the IRIS® Registry, Census, and NHANES by patient demographics. RESULTS: Visual impairment was present in 6.98% (n = 1 364 935) and blindness in 0.98% (n = 190 817) of IRIS patients. Adjusted odds of blindness were highest among patients ≥ 85 years old (odds ratio [OR], 11.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 10.33-13.59 vs. those 0-17 years old). Blindness also was associated positively with rural location and Medicaid, Medicare, or no insurance vs. commercial insurance. Hispanic (OR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.46-1.74) and Black (OR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.63-1.84) patients showed a higher odds of blindness versus White non-Hispanic patients. Proportional representation in IRIS Registry relative to the Census was higher for White than Hispanic (2- to 4-fold) or Black (11%-85%) patients (P < 0.001). Blindness overall was less prevalent in NHANES than IRIS Registry; however, prevalence in adults aged 60+ was lowest among Black participants in the NHANES (0.54%) and second highest among comparable Black adults in IRIS (1.57%). CONCLUSIONS: Legal blindness from low VA was present in 0.98% of IRIS patients and associated with rural location, public or no insurance, and older age. Compared with US Census estimates, minorities may be underrepresented among ophthalmology patients, and compared with NHANES population estimates, Black individuals may be overrepresented among blind IRIS Registry patients. These findings provide a snapshot of US ophthalmic care and highlight the need for initiatives to address disparities in use and blindness. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

Cataract Surgery in the Medicare Merit-Based Incentive Payment System: Episode-Based Cost Measure Development and Evaluation.

Objective: To characterize the development and performance of a cataract surgery episode-based cost measure for the Medicare Quality Payment Program. Design: Claims-based analysis. Participants: Medicare clinicians with cataract surgery claims between June 1, 2016, and May 31, 2017. Methods: We limited the analysis to claims with procedure code 66984 (routine cataract surgery), excluding cases with relevant ocular comorbidities. We divided episodes into subgroups by surgery location (Ambulatory Surgery Center [ASC] or Hospital Outpatient Department [HOPD]) and laterality (bilateral when surgeries were within 30 days apart). For the episode-based cost measure, we calculated costs occurring between 60 days before surgery and 90 days after surgery, limited to services identified by an expert committee as related to cataract surgery and under the influence of the cataract surgeon. We attributed costs to the clinician submitting the cataract surgery claim, categorized costs into clinical themes, and calculated episode cost distribution, reliability in detecting clinician-dependent cost variation, and costs with versus without complications. We compared episode-based cost scores with hypothetical "nonselective" cost scores (total Medicare beneficiary costs between 60 days before surgery and 90 days after surgery). Main Outcome Measures: Episode costs with and without complications, clinician-dependent variation (proportion of total cost variance), and proportion of costs from cataract surgery-related clinical themes. Results: We identified 583 356 cataract surgery episodes attributed to 10 790 clinicians and 8189 with ≥ 10 episodes during the measurement period. Most surgeries were performed in an ASC (71%) and unilateral (66%). The mean episode cost was $2876. The HOPD surgeries had higher costs; geography and episodes per clinician did not substantially affect costs. The proportion of cost variation from clinician-dependent factors was higher in episode-based compared with nonselective cost measures (94% vs. 39%), and cataract surgery-related clinical themes represented a higher proportion of total costs for episode-based measures. Episodes with complications had higher costs than episodes without complications ($3738 vs. $2276). Conclusions: The cataract surgery episode-based cost measure performs better than a comparable nonselective measure based on cost distribution, clinician-dependent variance, association with cataract surgery-related clinical themes, and quality alignment (higher costs in episodes with complications). Cost measure maintenance and refinement will be important to maintain clinical validity and reliability. Financial Disclosures: Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references.

Thyroid Eye Disease and its Vision-Threatening Manifestations in the Academy IRIS Registry: 2014-2018.

PURPOSE: To evaluate prevalence of thyroid eye disease (TED) and associated factors in the American Academy of Ophthalmology IRISⓇ Registry (Intelligent Research in Sight). DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of the IRIS Registry. METHODS: IRIS Registry patients (18-90 years old) were classified as TED (ICD-9: 242.00, ICD-10: E05.00 on ≥2 visits) or non-TED cases, and prevalence was estimated. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) were estimated using logistic regression. RESULTS: 41,211 TED patients were identified. TED prevalence was 0.09%, showed a unimodal age distribution (highest prevalence in ages 50-59 years (y) (0.12%)), higher rates in females than males (0.12% vs. 0.04%) and in non-Hispanics than Hispanics (0.10% vs. 0.05%). Prevalence differed by race (from 0.08% in Asians to 0.12% in Black/African-Americans), with varying peak ages of prevalence. Factors associated with TED in multivariate analysis included age: ((18-<30y (reference), 30-39y: OR (95%CI) 2.2 (2.0, 2.4), 40-49y: 2.9 (2.7,3.1), 50-59y: 3.3 (3.1, 3. 5), 60-69y: 2.7 (2.54, 2.85), 70+: 1.5 (1.46, 1.64)); female sex vs male (reference), 3.5 (3.4,3.6), race: White (reference), Blacks: 1.1 (1.1,1.2), Asian: 0.9 (0.8,0.9), Hispanic ethnicity vs not Hispanic (reference), 0.68 (0.6,0.7), smoking status: (never (ref), former: 1.64 (1.6,1.7), current 2.16: (2.1,2.2)) and Type 1 diabetes (yes vs no (reference): 1.87 (1.8, 1.9). CONCLUSIONS: This epidemiologic profile of TED includes new observations such as a unimodal age distribution and racial variation in prevalence. Associations with female sex, smoking, and Type 1 diabetes are consistent with prior reports. These findings raise novel questions about TED in different populations.

Causes of Childhood Blindness in the United States Using the IRIS® Registry (Intelligent Research in Sight).

PURPOSE: To investigate causes of childhood blindness in the United States using the IRIS® Registry (Intelligent Research in Sight). DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. PARTICIPANTS: Patients ≤ 18 years of age with visual acuity (VA) 20/200 or worse in their better-seeing eye in the IRIS Registry during 2018. METHODS: Causes of blindness were classified by anatomic site and specific diagnoses. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Percentages of causes of blindness. RESULTS: Of 81 164 children with 2018 VA data in the IRIS Registry, 961 (1.18%) had VA 20/200 or worse in their better-seeing eye. Leading causes of blindness were retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) in 301 patients (31.3%), nystagmus in 78 patients (8.1%), and cataract in 64 patients (6.7%). The retina was the leading anatomic site (47.7%) followed by optic nerve (11.6%) and lens (10.0%). A total of 52.4% of patients had treatable causes of blindness. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis offers a unique cross-sectional view of childhood blindness in the United States using a clinical data registry. More than one-half of blind patients had a treatable cause of blindness. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

Analysis of the Readability and Accountability of Online Patient Education Materials Related to Glaucoma Diagnosis and Treatment.

Purpose: To assess the readability and accountability of online patient education materials related to glaucoma diagnosis and treatment. Methods: We conducted a Google search for 10 search terms related to glaucoma diagnosis and 10 search terms related to glaucoma treatment. For each search term, the first 10 patient education websites populated after Google search were assessed for readability and accountability. Readability was assessed using five validated measures: Flesch Reading Ease (FRE), Gunning Fog Index (GFI), Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), and New Dale-Chall (NDC). Accountability was assessed using the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmarks. The source of information for each article analyzed was recorded. Results: Of the 200 total websites analyzed, only 11% were written at or below the recommended 6th grade reading level. The average FRE and grade level for 100 glaucoma diagnosis-related articles were 42.02 ± 1.08 and 10.53 ± 1.30, respectively. The average FRE and grade level for 100 glaucoma treatment-related articles were 43.86 ± 1.01 and 11.29 ± 1.54, respectively. Crowdsourced articles were written at the highest average grade level (12.32 ± 0.78), followed by articles written by private practice/independent users (11.22 ± 1.74), national organizations (10.92 ± 1.24), and educational institutions (10.33 ± 1.35). Websites averaged 1.12 ± 1.15 of 4 JAMA accountability metrics. Conclusion: Despite wide variation in the readability and accountability of online patient education materials related to glaucoma diagnosis and treatment, patient education materials are consistently written at levels above the recommended reading level and often lack accountability. Articles from educational institutions and national organizations were often written at lower reading levels but are less frequently encountered after Google search. There is a need for accurate and understandable online information that glaucoma patients can use to inform decisions about their eye health.

Outcomes of Over 40,000 Eyes Treated for Diabetic Macula Edema in Routine Clinical Practice: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: We investigated effectiveness and safety outcomes of diabetic macula edema (DME) treatment in routine clinical practice. METHODS: A literature search was conducted of peer-reviewed articles published from January 2011 to September 2021. Studies of DME treatment in real-world practice of at least 6 months with at least 50 eyes at baseline were included. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were excluded. The primary outcome for this meta-analysis was change in visual acuity (VA) 12 months after starting treatment. RESULTS: Of 3034 initially identified studies, 138 met selection criteria, representing more than 40,000 eyes. The mean 12-month VA gain was 4.6 letters (95% CI 3.7, 5.4; baseline 58.6) for vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors (anti-VEGF), 4.4 (2.5, 6.3; baseline 54.2) for steroids, and 2.1 (- 1.2, 5.3; baseline 63.6) for macular laser. Australian and New Zealand studies had better baseline VA when initiating treatment compared with Asia, Europe, and North America, translating to better VA at 12 months. Fewer anti-VEGF injections were delivered in real-world practice than registrational RCTs. Neither systemic nor ocular safety was consistently reported. CONCLUSIONS: Intravitreal anti-VEGF or steroids for DME generally led to visual gains in real-world practice but these were less impressive than RCTs, with undertreatment and differences in baseline characteristics likely contributing factors.

#Ophthalmology: Social Media Utilization and Impact in Ophthalmology Journals, Professional Societies, and Eye Health Organizations.

Aim: To evaluate and quantify social media presence of ophthalmology peer-reviewed journals, professional societies, and eye health organizations, and to determine if there is a correlation between social media utilization and Twitter engagement metrics or journal impact measures. Methods: We searched for online profiles of 100 ophthalmology peer-reviewed journals, 333 professional ophthalmology societies, and 40 eye health organizations on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. Impact was quantified by recording the number of "likes" on Facebook and number of followers on Twitter and Instagram. We also used Twitonomy software to obtain advanced Twitter metrics for all journal accounts from 2018 to 2021, and compared to journal impact measured by SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) score, the h-index, and impact factor. Results: Eye health organizations averaged significantly greater Facebooks "likes" and Twitter followers than both peer-reviewed journals and professional societies (p < 0.0001). Of 100 journals studied, 30% were active on Twitter, 25% on Facebook, and 6% on Instagram. Slightly more than half of all journal-affiliated social media accounts were accessible from the journal website. Among journals with active Twitter accounts, total followers, total tweets, average retweets, and average "favorites" were all significantly positively correlated with academic metrics such as the SJR, h-index, and/or impact factor. Conclusion: Greater social media engagement is associated with higher ophthalmology journal impact metrics; however, ophthalmology journals and professional societies lag behind eye health organizations in social media engagement. Although unable to demonstrate causality, social media may be an underutilized visibility, communication, and dissemination tool.

The American Academy of Ophthalmology IRIS Registry (Intelligent Research In Sight): current and future state of big data analytics.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To describe the drivers, development, and current state of the American Academy of Ophthalmology IRIS Registry (Intelligent Research In Sight), and analytics involving deidentified aggregate IRIS Registry data. RECENT FINDINGS: The IRIS Registry has a core mission of quality improvement and reporting. In addition, analytic projects performed to date have included characterizing patient populations and diseases, incidence, and prevalence; clinical outcomes and complications; risk factors and effect modifiers; practice patterns; and trends over time. Pipeline projects include application of artificial intelligence and machine learning approaches for predictive modeling and analytics, disease mapping, detecting patterns and identifying cohorts, and optimizing treatment based on patient-specific characteristics. SUMMARY: The IRIS Registry is the nation's largest single specialty clinical registry, with unique data elements specific to ophthalmology. It offers a wealth of opportunities involving big data analytics, including traditional inferential statistics as well as machine learning and artificial intelligence approaches scalable on massive amounts of data.

An evaluation of the content on pediatric ophthalmology fellowship program websites.

Fellowship program website content has been studied for some ophthalmological subspecialties; however, pediatric ophthalmology fellowship program websites have not been previously studied. Our cross-sectional analysis reveals that all US pediatric ophthalmology fellowship programs maintain an active website that is visible after Google search, which is not the case for all glaucoma, vitreoretinal surgery, or ophthalmic plastic and reconstructive surgery fellowship programs. Content on pediatric ophthalmology fellowship program websites varied widely, with program websites averaging only 12 ± 3.3 of 20 recruitment and education criteria evaluated (range, 3-18). Total number of fellows, number of clinical faculty, and geographic region did not affect fellowship program website content score. Fewer than half of fellowship program websites contained criteria often deemed important by applicants, including geographic placement of graduates, salary/benefits, and call schedule. Optimized recruitment and education content on fellowship programs websites may help applicants identify programs that best align with their career goals.

Readability and Accountability of Online Patient Education Materials for Common Retinal Diseases.

Patients often utilize the internet to vlearn about retinal diseases. Our results demonstrate that online patient education materials related to common retinal diseases are often written at higher than recommended reading levels and lack accountability.

Accessibility and Content of Vitreoretinal Surgery Fellowship Program Websites.

Fellowship program websites represent an important information source for applicants. Our results demonstrate that vitreoretinal surgery fellowship websites are inconsistent and often incomplete. Incorporating additional recruitment and education criteria may improve website information potential.

Relative Importance of Applicant Characteristics in Ophthalmology Residency Interview Selection: A Survey of Program Directors.

Introduction Ophthalmology residency positions remain competitive. A lack of clarity regarding which residency selection criteria are prioritized by program directors can heighten the stress associated with the match process. While surveys of program directors in several other medical specialties have been conducted to identify the most important residency selection criteria, there is limited data on selection criteria used by ophthalmology residency program directors. The purpose of our study was to survey ophthalmology residency program directors to identify the current state of interview selection decisions-the factors currently considered most important in determining whether to extend an interview invitation to residency applicants. Methods We developed and distributed a Web-based questionnaire to all U.S. ophthalmology residency program directors. Questions evaluated program demographics and the relative importance of 23 different selection criteria used by ophthalmology residency program directors when evaluating applicants for residency interviews (Likert scale 1-5, with 1 being "not important" and 5 being "very important"). Program directors were also asked to identify the one factor they felt was most important. Results The overall residency program director response rate was 56.5% (70/124). The selection criteria with the highest average importance scores were core clinical clerkship grades (4.26/5) followed by letters of recommendation (4.06/5), and United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 score (4.03/5). The most frequently cited single most important factor for interview selection was core clinical clerkship grades (18/70, 25.7%), with USMLE Step 1 score (9/70, 12.9%) and rotations at the program director's department (6/70, 8.6%) also commonly reported. Conclusion Our results suggest that core clinical clerkship grades, letters of recommendation, and USMLE Step 1 scores are deemed the most important selection criteria by ophthalmology residency program directors as of a 2021 survey. With changes in clerkship grading for many medical schools and changes in national USMLE Step 1 score reporting, programs will face challenges in evaluating applicants and the relative importance of other selection criteria will likely increase.

Geographic Trends in the Ophthalmology Residency Match: Influence of Program and Applicant Characteristics.

Introduction The ophthalmology residency match remains competitive. Several prior studies have examined various factors that contribute to a successful match into an ophthalmology residency program; however, the role of geographic location in the ophthalmology residency match process is unclear. The purpose of our study was to evaluate geographic trends in the ophthalmology residency match and to determine whether geographic trends vary based on program level factors such as program rank or funding source and/or applicant factors such as year of training, gender, and medical degree earned. Specifically, we assessed associations with residents training at the residency program affiliated with their medical school and/or within the same geographic region as their medical school, using data obtained through publicly available sources and residency program surveys. Methods We used the American Medical Association's Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database database to identify accredited ophthalmology residency programs. Residency program Web sites and email inquiries were used to collect demographic and geographic information for residents in the graduating classes of 2021 to 2023. Statistical analysis included χ 2 testing and multivariate logistic regression. Results In total, 1,378 residents were included from 110 ophthalmology residency programs and 218 medical schools. Residents who matched at the residency program affiliated with their medical school (18%) were evenly distributed among the Midwest, Northeast, South, and West regions ( p = 0.2236). Residency programs in the West (31.7%) matched fewer regional medical students compared with programs in the South (61.2%), Midwest (57.4%), and Northeast (58.4%) ( p < 0.0001). Attending a publicly funded medical school was associated with higher odds of matching into a regional residency program (odds ratio [OR], 1.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.10-1.90; p = 0.0001) and attending a privately funded medical school was associated with higher odds of matching into a top-ranked residency program (OR, 1.53, 95% CI, 1.34-1.82; p = 0.0002). Conclusions The majority of current ophthalmology residents trained at programs in the same geographic region as their medical schools, with nearly 20% of residents training at their medical school-affiliated program. Geographic differences in match results were observed based on resident gender, medical school characteristics, and residency program region.

An Analysis of the Diversity and Inclusion Content Featured on Ophthalmology Residency Program Web Sites.

Introduction Ophthalmology departments have been stated to be among the least diverse clinical departments at United States medical schools. Improvement requires recruiting a pipeline of diverse trainees. Residency program Web sites represent a potential diversity and inclusion recruitment tool. This study assesses how ophthalmology residency program Web sites demonstrate a commitment to diversity and inclusion. Methods We analyzed the diversity and inclusion content of 116 ophthalmology residency program Web sites in April 2021. Main outcome measures were the presence of 12 diversity and inclusion elements on program Web sites, based on prior work and Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education guidelines: nondiscrimination statement, diversity and inclusion message, community resources, extended faculty or resident biographies (including hobbies, etc.), faculty photos, resident photos, additional financial resources for trainees, wellness resources, mental health resources, health disparities/community engagement, and diversity council. We used Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis tests to assess whether residency program characteristics such as rank, size, university affiliation, and geographic location were associated with commitment to diversity and inclusion on affiliated residency Web sites. Results Ophthalmology residency program Web sites included a mean of 4.4 ± 2.1 diversity elements. Sixteen percent of programs featured more than half (7 + ) of the evaluated diversity elements. The most featured common diversity elements included resident photos (85.3%), faculty photos (78.4%), and community resources (64.3%). Extended faculty biographies (2.6%), mental health resources (9.5%), and diversity council information (11.2%) were less commonly showcased. Top-ranked programs (7.6 ± 1.8, p < 0.0001) and university-based/-affiliated programs (4.7 ± 2.8, p = 0.0039) displayed more diversity elements than lower-ranked (4.1 ± 1.8) and community-based programs (2.8 ± 1.7). Conclusion Most ophthalmology residency program Web sites feature less than half of the 12 diversity and inclusion elements included in this study, suggesting room for improvement. By drawing attention to program diversity and inclusion efforts, Web sites offer a potential tool for residency programs to consider in their recruitment efforts for diverse trainees. Incorporating the diversity and inclusion elements analyzed in this study represents a low-burden way to signal a greater commitment to diversity that could help programs recruit diverse applicants.