-
La Tunisie Medicale 2023The interaction between physicians and pharmaceutical industry highlighted many issues lately concerning their influence on physician's attitude and their prescribing...
INTRODUCTION
The interaction between physicians and pharmaceutical industry highlighted many issues lately concerning their influence on physician's attitude and their prescribing behavior.
AIM
To evaluate the attitudes of Tunisian ophthalmologist towards pharmaceutical promotion.
METHODS
Data was collected through an auto-administered anonymous questionnaire elaborated in French that was distributed to 160 ophthalmologists (residents and specialists) working in hospitals or private practices in four Tunisian governorates (Tunis, Sousse, Monastir and Sfax).
RESULTS
One hundred and two valid responses were received. Twenty-nine respondents (28.43%) estimated the number of visits by pharmaceutical representatives (PR) at 11 to 20 times during the last year. Most physicians considered guides (94%), drug samples (88%), articles (86%), stationery (81%), sponsorship of overseas conferences (72%) and international trips to symposia organized by pharmaceutical industries (58%), as appropriate gifts. Over 80% of doctors agreed that promotional activities by drug companies were appropriate. Accepting sponsorship from a pharmaceutical company for a partner to attend a meeting was considered inappropriate by 79% of ophthalmologists. Eighty-eight percent of the respondents agreed that receiving gifts will increase their prescription of the company's drug. However, they perceived themselves to be less influenced than their colleagues (p=0.011). Eighty-six percent of ophthalmologists reported training about how to interact with PR to be insufficient.
CONCLUSIONS
Despite the role of PR in supporting research, ethical issues may arise through their interactions with healthcare professionals. Training about pharmaceutical promotion and appropriate ways to deal with it are lacking in Tunisian medical schools' curricula, leaving future doctors unprepared to deal with pharmaceutical influences.
Topics: Humans; Ophthalmologists; Physicians; Curriculum; Health Personnel; Pharmaceutical Preparations
PubMed: 38445399
DOI: No ID Found -
JAMA Ophthalmology Jan 2023Benchmarking attitudes surrounding parental leave among posttraining North American ophthalmologists may reveal possible areas for intervention.
IMPORTANCE
Benchmarking attitudes surrounding parental leave among posttraining North American ophthalmologists may reveal possible areas for intervention.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate perceptions of current parental leave policy and culture among posttraining North American ophthalmologists.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS
This nonvalidated survey used a 19-item online questionnaire. A convenience sample of 186 self-identified North American-based ophthalmologists who had completed training was obtained using listservs, residency program coordinators, and social media. Data collection occurred from May to July 2022.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Descriptive analysis demonstrated response frequencies. Pearson χ2 comparison of means was performed for categorical variables. Two-tailed t tests were performed for continuous variables.
RESULTS
Among the 186 surveys completed, 105 respondents (56.5%) identified as female, 76 (40.9%) worked in academia, 133 (71.5%) were 1 to 20 years out of training, and 156 (83.9%) had children. Attitudes toward stop-the-clock policies, or delays in tenure/promotion/partnership review when taking leave, were mixed. Of 171 respondents, 78 (45.6%) thought that stop-the-clock policies should be optional, 39 (22.8%) thought that they should be required, and 31 (18.1%) thought that they should be removed. Of 76 academicians responding, 56 (73.7%) and 49 (64.5%) were unaware if their institution had a stop-the-clock policy for tenure review or promotion review, respectively. Male and female respondents differed in feeling comfortable with taking leave (36 of 66 [54.5%] vs 67 of 90 [74.4%], respectively; P = .04), as well as in their ratings of stress about peer perception on a scale of 0 to 10 (3.70 vs 4.81, respectively; P = .05). Private practitioners and academicians differed in confirmation of leave options for both parents (52 of 101 [51.5%] vs 49 of 69 [71.0%], respectively; P = .02) and ratings of financial stress (7.10 vs 5.43, respectively; P = .004) and research considerations (1.60 vs 3.85, respectively; P < .001).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Results of this survey study support the hypothesis that demographic factors affect attitudes toward parental leave among posttraining ophthalmologists; policies could be better publicized. Feelings regarding policies and leave were mixed. These findings should be viewed as hypothesis generating because the survey was not validated and the associations provided could be due to confounding factors.
Topics: Child; Humans; Male; Female; Parental Leave; Ophthalmologists; Surveys and Questionnaires; Internship and Residency; Policy
PubMed: 36480180
DOI: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2022.5236 -
Graefe's Archive For Clinical and... Mar 2024Proliferative vitreoretinopathy (PVR) remains the main cause of failure in retinal detachment (RD) surgery and a demanding challenge for vitreoretinal surgeons. Despite... (Review)
Review
Proliferative vitreoretinopathy (PVR) remains the main cause of failure in retinal detachment (RD) surgery and a demanding challenge for vitreoretinal surgeons. Despite the large improvements in surgical techniques and a better understanding of PVR pathogenesis in the last years, satisfactory anatomical and visual outcomes have not been provided yet. For this reason, several different adjunctive pharmacological agents have been investigated in combination with surgery. In this review, we analyze the current and emerging adjunctive treatment options for the management of PVR and we discuss their possible clinical application and beneficial role in this subgroup of patients.
Topics: Humans; Vitreoretinopathy, Proliferative; Ophthalmologists; Retinal Detachment; Surgeons
PubMed: 37843566
DOI: 10.1007/s00417-023-06264-1 -
Ceska a Slovenska Oftalmologie :... 2022In December 2019, a novel coronavirus (CoV) epidemic, caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) emerged from China. Coronaviruses belong... (Review)
Review
In December 2019, a novel coronavirus (CoV) epidemic, caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) emerged from China. Coronaviruses belong to enveloped ssRNA viruses and are classified into four genera: Alpha coronavirus, Beta coronavirus, Gamma coronavirus and Delta coronavirus. It is assumed that SARS-CoV-2 is spread primarily during a personal contact via bigger respiratory droplets. These droplets with viruses can be directly inhaled by other people or can lend on the surfaces with the possibility of further spreading. The ocular surface has been suggested as one of possible infection entries. Human eye has its own renin-angiotensin system with present ACE2 receptors, which bind the virus through spike protein. The most common symptoms of the SARS-CoV-2 infection are fever, cough and dyspnoea. Several clinical entities, such as conjunctivitis, anterior uveitis, retinitis, and optic neuritis have been associated with this infection. The most common ophthalmologic symptom associated with COVID-19 disease is conjunctivitis. Some studies indicate that eye symptoms are commonly present in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia and that it is possible to detect viral RNA from the conjunctival sac of these patients. In ophthalmologic praxis, we manage not only the therapy of the eye structures` inflammation in relation with this infection, but also the overall management of the visits and the supervision of the patients who are at risk and positive for coronavirus. Ophthalmologists could potentially have a higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection due to personal communication with the patients, frequent exposure to tears and eye secrets and the use of devices. We would like to provide an ophthalmologist`s perspective on this topic.
Topics: COVID-19; Humans; Ophthalmologists; Pandemics; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 35105149
DOI: 10.31348/2022/1 -
Ophthalmology May 2020
Topics: Betacoronavirus; COVID-19; Coronavirus Infections; Humans; Infection Control; Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional; Ophthalmologists; Ophthalmology; Pandemics; Pneumonia, Viral; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 32327128
DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2020.03.037 -
JAMA Ophthalmology Oct 2021Individuals with perceived experience and expertise are invited by editorial boards to provide commentary through editorials. Female representation among editorialists...
IMPORTANCE
Individuals with perceived experience and expertise are invited by editorial boards to provide commentary through editorials. Female representation among editorialists is not yet defined.
OBJECTIVE
To determine female representation as editorial authors in 3 high-impact general ophthalmology journals.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS
This cross-sectional study investigates the proportion of female authorship in editorials published between 2005 to 2009 and 2015 to 2019 in 3 journals: Ophthalmology, JAMA Ophthalmology, and American Journal of Ophthalmology. Data were collected from April to June 2020.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Proportions of female first and senior (last or solo) authors between 2005 to 2009 compared with 2015 to 2019. Secondary outcome measures include representation by sex across degree types and subspecialties. Comparisons were made for all editorialists and ophthalmologist editorialists.
RESULTS
Of 814 editorial articles, there were 1179 (first and senior) authors identified. Women held 301 (25.5%) of these authorships, including 116 of 365 first authorships (32.9%) and 185 of 814 senior authorships (23.9%). Overall, female first and senior authorships grew by 68.0% between 2005 to 2009 and 2015 to 2019 (85 of 469 [18.1%] vs 216 of 710 [30.4%]; difference, 12.3%; 95% CI, 7.4-317.2; P < .001). Between 2005 to 2009 and 2015 to 2019, first and senior authorships by women increased (first: 33 of 133 [24.8%] vs 83 of 232 [35.8%]; difference, 11.0%; 95% CI, 1.4-320.6; P = .03; senior: 52 of 336 [15.5%] vs 133 of 478 [27.8%]; difference, 12.3%; 95% CI, 6.8-317.9; P < .001). JAMA Ophthalmology most substantially contributed to the increase in female first and senior authorships (13.8% and 16%), although the test for homogeneity among the 3 journals was not significant. The proportion of female ophthalmologist first authors was greater than the proportion of American Board of Ophthalmology-certified female ophthalmologists (81 of 281 [28.9%] vs 123 of 672 [18.3%]; difference, 10.6%; 95% CI, 5.3-315.9; P < .001).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
The proportion of female senior authors increased by 68.0% between 2005 to 2009 and 2015 to 2019, but female authors represented only 25.5% of editorialists. Compared with male ophthalmologists, female ophthalmologists were more commonly first than senior authors. Additionally, female authors were more likely to be nonophthalmologists or to hold nonmedical, non-PhD degrees. While the swelling rank of female editorialists has paralleled the rising proportion of female ophthalmologists over time, parity by sex has yet to be attained. Greater awareness of disparities and strategies to mitigate them may help equalize representation.
Topics: Authorship; Cross-Sectional Studies; Female; Humans; Male; Ophthalmologists; Ophthalmology; Periodicals as Topic
PubMed: 34383002
DOI: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2021.3027 -
Ophthalmology Sep 2022To evaluate differences in Medicare reimbursements between male and female ophthalmologists between 2013 and 2019.
PURPOSE
To evaluate differences in Medicare reimbursements between male and female ophthalmologists between 2013 and 2019.
DESIGN
Retrospective cohort study.
PARTICIPANTS
Ophthalmologists receiving Medicare reimbursements between 2013 and 2019.
METHODS
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Physician and Other Supplier Public Use File was used to determine total reimbursements and number of services submitted by ophthalmologists between 2013 and 2019. Reimbursements were standardized to account for geographic differences in Medicare reimbursement per service. Data from the American Community Survey (ACS) were used to determine socioeconomic characteristics (unemployment, poverty, income, and education) by zip code for the location of each physician's practice. A multivariate linear regression model was used to evaluate differences in annual reimbursements by sex, accounting for calendar year, years of experience, total number of services, ACS zip code data, and proportion of procedural services.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
Annual Medicare reimbursement and use of billing codes (e.g., outpatient office visits and eye examinations, diagnostic testing, laser treatment, and surgery).
RESULTS
Among 20 281 ophthalmologists who received Medicare reimbursements between 2013 and 2019, 15 451 (76%) were men. The most common billing codes submitted were for outpatient visits and eye examinations (13.8 million charges/year), diagnostic imaging of the retina (5.6 million charges/year), intravitreal injections (2.9 million charges/year), and removal of cataract with insertion of lens (2.4 million charges/year). Compared with men, female ophthalmologists received less in median annual reimbursements (median, $94 734.21 [interquartile range (IQR), $30 944.52-$195 701.70] for women vs. $194 176.90 [IQR, $76 380.76-$355 790.80] for men; P < 0.001) and billed for fewer annual median services (median, 1228 [IQR, 454-2433] vs. 2259 [IQR, 996-4075, respectively]; P < 0.001). After adjustment for covariates, female ophthalmologists billed for 1015 fewer services (95% confidence interval [CI], 1001-1029; P < 0.001) and received $20 209.12 less in reimbursements than men (95% CI, -$21 717.57 to -$18 700.66; P < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS
Female ophthalmologists billed for fewer services and received less in reimbursement from Medicare than men over time and across all categories of billing codes. Disparities persisted after controlling for physician and practice characteristics.
Topics: Aged; Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, U.S.; Female; Humans; Intravitreal Injections; Male; Medicare; Ophthalmologists; Retrospective Studies; United States
PubMed: 35588946
DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2022.05.006 -
Cureus Sep 2023To evaluate the accuracy and bias of ophthalmologist recommendations made by three AI chatbots, namely ChatGPT 3.5 (OpenAI, San Francisco, CA, USA), Bing Chat...
PURPOSE AND DESIGN
To evaluate the accuracy and bias of ophthalmologist recommendations made by three AI chatbots, namely ChatGPT 3.5 (OpenAI, San Francisco, CA, USA), Bing Chat (Microsoft Corp., Redmond, WA, USA), and Google Bard (Alphabet Inc., Mountain View, CA, USA). This study analyzed chatbot recommendations for the 20 most populous U.S. cities.
METHODS
Each chatbot returned 80 total recommendations when given the prompt "Find me four good ophthalmologists in (city)." Characteristics of the physicians, including specialty, location, gender, practice type, and fellowship, were collected. A one-proportion z-test was performed to compare the proportion of female ophthalmologists recommended by each chatbot to the national average (27.2% per the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC)). Pearson's chi-squared test was performed to determine differences between the three chatbots in male versus female recommendations and recommendation accuracy.
RESULTS
Female ophthalmologists recommended by Bing Chat (1.61%) and Bard (8.0%) were significantly less than the national proportion of 27.2% practicing female ophthalmologists (p<0.001, p<0.01, respectively). ChatGPT recommended fewer female (29.5%) than male ophthalmologists (p<0.722). ChatGPT (73.8%), Bing Chat (67.5%), and Bard (62.5%) gave high rates of inaccurate recommendations. Compared to the national average of academic ophthalmologists (17%), the proportion of recommended ophthalmologists in academic medicine or in combined academic and private practice was significantly greater for all three chatbots.
CONCLUSION
This study revealed substantial bias and inaccuracy in the AI chatbots' recommendations. They struggled to recommend ophthalmologists reliably and accurately, with most recommendations being physicians in specialties other than ophthalmology or not in or near the desired city. Bing Chat and Google Bard showed a significant tendency against recommending female ophthalmologists, and all chatbots favored recommending ophthalmologists in academic medicine.
PubMed: 37885556
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.45911 -
Indian Journal of Ophthalmology Dec 2021This article aims at analyzing the impact of predatory publishing in ophthalmology, criteria to identify a legitimate journal, red flags of a predatory journal, sources,...
This article aims at analyzing the impact of predatory publishing in ophthalmology, criteria to identify a legitimate journal, red flags of a predatory journal, sources, and checkpoints available before publishing scientific work in a standard ophthalmology journal. A retrospective review was performed and a list of suspected Ophthalmology predatory journals was extracted through four major so-called blacklists: Beall's, Cabell's, Manca's, and Strinzel's list. This list of journals was then cross-referenced with the UGC CARE and vetted whitelist of vision science journals to remove the legitimate journals. Moreover, as all the predatory journals are supposed to be open access, all possible types of open-access journals on the Scimago webpage were also searched. A gross estimate in terms of publication cost was searched for, and a list of authentic links to find out a legitimate journal was prepared. Additionally, the methodology by which these predatory journals penetrate legitimate indexes such as PubMed was also evaluated. A total of 51 ophthalmology predatory journals were enlisted. Thirty-eight out of 124 Ophthalmology journals listed on Scimago were open access, and the cost of publishing in predatory journals ranged from USD50-500, which is substantially lower than that in legitimate journals (USD 50-3000). A total of 13 open-access platforms exist, with 10 characteristic red flags to identify a predatory journal. These journals have penetrated legitimate indexes such as PubMed by similar-sounding names to the legitimate journals and have published articles with external funding, which needs indexing. Predatory publishing impacts the quality of research in every field, including Ophthalmology, and must be discouraged.
Topics: Abstracting and Indexing; Humans; Ophthalmologists; Publishing; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 34827029
DOI: 10.4103/ijo.IJO_1639_21 -
Eye (London, England) Apr 2022
Topics: Artificial Intelligence; Humans; Ophthalmologists; Ophthalmology
PubMed: 35001087
DOI: 10.1038/s41433-021-01891-6