Search

Purpose. To evaluate the current and suitable use of current proliferative vitreoretinopathy (PVR) classifications in clinical publications related to treatment. Methods. A PubMed search was undertaken using the term “proliferative vitreoretinopathy therapy”. Outcome parameters were the reported PVR classification and PVR grades. The way the classifications were used in comparison to the original description was analyzed. Classification errors were also included. It was also noted whether classifications were used for comparison before and after pharmacological or surgical treatment. Results. 138 papers were included. 35 of them (25.4%) presented no classification reference or did not use any one. 103 publications (74.6%) used a standardized classification. The updated Retina Society Classification, the first Retina Society Classification, and the Silicone Study Classification were cited in 56.3%, 33.9%, and 3.8% papers, respectively. Furthermore, 3 authors (2.9%) used modified-customized classifications and 4 (3.8%) classification errors were identified. When the updated Retina Society Classification was used, only 10.4% of authors used a full C grade description. Finally, only 2 authors reported PVR grade before and after treatment. Conclusions. Our findings suggest that current classifications are of limited value in clinical practice due to the inconsistent and limited use and that it may be of benefit to produce a revised classification.

Homocysteine in the Pathogenesis of Chronic Glaucoma

Purpose To identify audience and faculty preferences to optimize digital education sessions in ophthalmology. Methods We distributed an online survey to ophthalmology trainees and specialists worldwide. The survey investigated respondents’ preferences on various findings of hypothetical digital educational sessions. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, Fisher's exact probability and ANOVA tests. Results The survey was completed by 655 respondents, from 53 different countries. According to most respondents, the optimal duration and timeframe for a valuable digital education session would be 30–60 min, without a break (52%), in the evening time-slot (6-8 p.m.) (45%) of a weekday (Monday-Thursday) (46%), regardless of age ( p-value = 0.84, 0.39, 0.89, respectively) and job position ( p-value = 0.31, 0.29, 0.08, respectively). The availability of webinars and recorded surgical videos/clinical cases, associated with live discussion, represented the most important opportunity of digital educational channels for 46% and 42% of respondents, respectively. Conclusion Appropriate planning of timing and structure of digital educational ophthalmology sessions may optimize their effectiveness. Using multiple e-learning formats may be helpful to ensure the continuity of learning activities, also in view of a long-term replacement of traditional in-person education.