Who cites optometry journals?

Purpose: This work seeks to identify the most impactful journals, papers, authors, institutions, and countries that cite optometry journal articles. Methods: The Scopus database was searched for papers citing at least one article published in any of the 18 optometry journals included in that database (i.e. ‘optometry articles’). The 10 most highly cited papers that cite optometry journal articles were determined from 82,830 papers found. A h-index for “optometry journal citations” (the hOJC-index) was derived for each entity in the categories of journals, papers, authors, institutions and countries to serve as a measure of impact. Results: The hOJC-index of the body of papers citing optometry journal articles is 370. Papers citing optometry journal articles have themselves been cited 2,054,816 times. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science (hOJC = 154) is the most impactful journal citing optometry articles and Optometry and Vision Science the most prolific (5310 papers). The most impactful paper citing optometry journal articles (5725 citations) was published in Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. Ophthalmologist Seang Mei Saw (hOJC = 69) is the most impactful author and optometrist Nathan Efron is the most prolific (288 papers). Harvard University (hOJC = 127) is the most impactful and UNSW Sydney is the most prolific institution (1761 papers). The United States is the most impactful and prolific nation (hOJC = 313; 28,485 papers). Conclusions: Optometry journal articles are cited extensively by optometrists, ophthalmologists, and vision scientists world-wide, as well as authors from a broad spectrum of non-ophthalmic research domains. This work confirms the utility and influence of optometry journals. (AU)

Measurement of visual acuity with a digital eye chart: optotypes, presentation modalities and repeatability

Purpose: Digital or computerised eye charts are becoming standard in the examination of visual acuity. Each instrument allows the selection of different optotypes, presentation modalities, and crowding. The aim of this study was to examine the differences in visual acuity (VA) measurement using a digital eye chart, comparing different optotypes and procedures, together with an evaluation of the repeatability of the measurement.MethodsTwo groups of 52 participants aged between 18 and 31 years participated in the study. In the first experiment, VA thresholds were measured using LEA Symbols, Tumbling E, and Landolt Rings in monocular and binocular conditions using single line presentation and QUEST presentation. In the second experiment, we have compared all modalities of presentation together with a paper eye-chart and test the repeatability.ResultsThe results showed that thresholds for LEA Symbols are low. The modality of presentation affects these thresholds. For Landolt Rings and Tumbling E, the QUEST procedure gave significantly better thresholds than line presentation, while this difference was absent for LEA Symbols. In comparing all modalities of presentation, single letter and line presentation showed similar values, slightly better than block presentation. Paper eye-charts showed better values of VA. Repeatability and agreement were good for all presentations, but best for QUEST.ConclusionsThe QUEST modality of presentation provides a better threshold than line presentation except for LEA Symbols. Examiners using digital eye charts must take into account that not all modalities of presentation and optotypes are equivalent and give different VA thresholds. Specific thresholds need to be used for each optotype and presentation modality. (AU)

Changing times for Journal of Optometry

No disponible

Contact lens education for the practitioners of the future.

The World Health Organization has identified a shortage of trained human resources as one of the greatest challenges to increasing the availability of eye care services and reducing preventable visual impairment around the world. Increased prevalence of myopia and new strategies for myopia management have raised the prospect of various interventions, including contact lenses for therapeutic use as well as for refractive correction. More personnel skilled in contact lens fitting will be needed to address potential worldwide demand for these interventions. This review investigates the current status and future requirements of global contact lens education in light of these developments. The COVD-19 pandemic led educational institutions worldwide to move towards online delivery. An online survey among 546 educators, conducted in May 2020, investigated changes to contact lens education delivery before and after the onset of the pandemic. A total of 214 responses were received from 32 countries. Prior to COVID-19 restrictions, 23% of educators had conducted more than 50% of their total teaching online; however, 69% expected to conduct more than half of their teaching online by the end of 2020 and 12% anticipated 90% or more of their teaching would be online. Some 76% of educators expected to provide more online lectures after the pandemic and 63% anticipated new methods to deliver practical education. Around half were planning to introduce new teaching online platforms (54%) and more online assessment methods (53%). The global need for increasing numbers of skilled personnel points to a crucial role for educators in teaching the contact lens practitioners of the future. Contact lens education delivery was already evolving prior to COVID-19, and changes that are currently occurring may lead to permanent differences in the way contact lenses are taught in future. The International Association of Contact Lens Educators (IACLE) provides educators with a standardised global curriculum, online resources and teaching technology that could also serve as a model for wider ophthalmic education in future.

Could telehealth help eye care practitioners adapt contact lens services during the COVID-19 pandemic?

The COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated government-imposed restrictions on social interactions and travel. For many, the guidance has led to new ways of working, most notably a shift towards working remotely. While eye care practitioners (ECPs) may continue to provide urgent or emergency eye care, in many cases the travel restrictions present a unique challenge by preventing conventional face-to-face examination. Telephone triage provides a useful starting point for establishing at-risk and emergency patients; but patient examination is central to contact lens patient care. The indeterminate period over which conventional practice will be suspended, and the risk that resumption of 'normal' practice could be impeded by a potential secondary peak in COVID-19 cases, hastens the need for practitioners to adapt their delivery of eyecare. Specifically, it is prudent to reflect upon supportive evidence for more comprehensive approaches to teleoptometry in contact lens practice. Smartphone based ocular imaging is an area which has seen considerable growth, particularly for imaging the posterior eye. Smartphone imaging of the anterior eye requires additional specialised instrumentation unlikely to be available to patients at home. Further, there is only limited evidence for self-administered image capture. In general, digital photographs, are useful for detection of gross anterior eye changes, but subtle changes are less discernible. For the assessment of visual acuity, many electronic test charts have been validated for use by practitioners. Research into self-administered visual acuity measures remains limited. The absence of a comprehensive evidence base for teleoptometry limits ECPs, particularly during this pandemic. Knowledge gaps ought to be addressed to facilitate development of optometry specific evidence-based guidance for telecare. In particular, advances in ocular self-imaging could help move this field forwards.

Data, the future of Science and Clinical Practice / Datos, el futuro de la ciencia y la práctica clínica

No disponible

Private Equity in Ophthalmology and Optometry: Analysis of Acquisitions from 2012 through 2019 in the United States.

PURPOSE: To identify temporal and geographic trends in private equity (PE)-backed acquisitions of ophthalmology and optometry practices in the United States. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study using private equity acquisition and investment data from January 1, 2012, through October 20, 2019. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 228 PE acquisitions of ophthalmology and optometry practices in the United States between 2012 and 2019. METHODS: Acquisition and financial investment data were compiled from 6 financial databases, 4 industry news outlets, and publicly available press releases from PE firms or platform companies. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Yearly trends in ophthalmology and optometry acquisitions, including number of total acquisitions, clinical locations, and providers of acquired practices as well as subsequent sales, median holding period, geographic footprint, and financing status of each platform company. RESULTS: A total of 228 practices associated with 1466 clinical locations and 2146 ophthalmologists or optometrists were acquired by 29 PE-backed platform companies. Of these acquisitions, 127, 9, and 92 were comprehensive or multispecialty, retina, and optometry practices, respectively. Acquisitions increased rapidly between 2012 and 2019: 42 practices were acquired between 2012 and 2016 compared to 186 from 2017 through 2019. Financing rounds of platform companies paralleled temporal acquisition trends. Three platform companies, comprising 60% of platforms formed before 2016, were subsequently sold or recapitalized to new PE investors by the end of this study period with a median holding period of 3.5 years. In terms of geographic distribution, acquisitions occurred in 40 states with most PE firms developing multistate platform companies. New York and California were the 2 states with the greatest number of PE acquisitions with 22 and 19, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Private equity-backed acquisitions of ophthalmology and optometry practices have increased rapidly since 2012, with some platform companies having already been sold or recapitalized to new investors. Additionally, private equity-backed platform companies have developed both regionally focused and multistate models of add-on acquisitions. Future research should assess the impact of PE investment on patient, provider, and practice metrics, including health outcomes, expenditures, procedural volume, and staff employment.

Optometry Research Agenda for the Next Decade: 20/20 by 2030 / Agenda de Investigación en Optometría para la Próxima Década: 20/20 para 203

No disponible

Uncontrolled experimentation is not an option for open minds: Ethical research is the answer / La experimentación descontrolada no es una opción para las mentes abiertas: la investigación ética es la respuesta

No disponible

Changes in Electronic Health Record Use Time and Documentation over the Course of a Decade.

PURPOSE: With the current wide adoption of electronic health records (EHRs) by ophthalmologists, there are widespread concerns about the amount of time spent using the EHR. The goal of this study was to examine how the amount of time spent using EHRs as well as related documentation behaviors changed 1 decade after EHR adoption. DESIGN: Single-center cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Six hundred eighty-five thousand three hundred sixty-one office visits with 70 ophthalmology providers. METHODS: We calculated time spent using the EHR associated with each individual office visit using EHR audit logs and determined chart closure times and progress note length from secondary EHR data. We tracked and modeled how these metrics changed from 2006 to 2016 with linear mixed models. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Minutes spent using the EHR associated with an office visit, chart closure time in hours from the office visit check-in time, and progress note length in characters. RESULTS: Median EHR time per office visit in 2006 was 4.2 minutes (interquartile range [IQR], 3.5 minutes), and increased to 6.4 minutes (IQR, 4.5 minutes) in 2016. Median chart closure time was 2.8 hours (IQR, 21.3 hours) in 2006 and decreased to 2.3 hours (IQR, 18.5 hours) in 2016. In 2006, median note length was 1530 characters (IQR, 1435 characters) and increased to 3838 characters (IQR, 2668.3 characters) in 2016. Linear mixed models found EHR time per office visit was 31.9±0.2% (P < 0.001) greater from 2014 through 2016 than from 2006 through 2010, chart closure time was 6.7±0.3 hours (P < 0.001) shorter from 2014 through 2016 versus 2006 through 2010, and note length was 1807.4±6.5 characters (P < 0.001) longer from 2014 through 2016 versus 2006 through 2010. CONCLUSIONS: After 1 decade of use, providers spend more time using the EHR for an office visit, generate longer notes, and close the chart faster. These changes are likely to represent increased time and documentation pressure for providers. Electronic health record redesign and new documentation regulations may help to address these issues.

Milestones in the development of Spanish optometry / Hitos en el desarrollo de la Optometría española

No disponible