Reading speed and correlation analysis of normally-sighted middle-aged and elderly people and age-related macular degeneration patients / 中华眼底病杂志

Objective:To evaluate the reading speed and related factors of normally-sighted middle-aged and elderly people, and compare with those assessed in age-related macular degeneration (AMD) patients.Methods:Prospective case control study. Participants aged 45 to 85 years old with junior high school or above education and BCVA no less than 0.6 from the community around the First Hospital of Tsinghua University were recruited. People with ocular and nervous system diseases were excluded. AMD patients without other ocular and nervous system diseases, with the BCVA of their better eye above 0.05, were recruited from the Low Vision Clinic of the First Hospital of Tsinghua University. The best corrected vision, contrast sensitivity, and reading acuity were tested. Reading speed was evaluated with IReST Chinese version. Single factor correlation analysis was used to assess different factors which may be related with the reading speed, then multiple linear regression analysis was conducted further.Results:From January to April, 2016, 53 volunteers aged 60.7±8.8 years old participated in the survey including 17 males and 36 females. Their median of best vision acuity both distance and near was 1.0, and their average reading speed was 244±55 characters/min. The average reading speed of younger participants in the middle-aged group (45-59 years old) was statistically faster ( P<0.05) than the elderly group (≥60 years old), which was 267±53 and 227±51 characters/min separately. The reading speed was correlated with age ( r=-0.476, P=0.000), gender ( t=-2.291, P=0.031), educational level ( t=2.656, P=0.011), reading habits ( t=7.346, P=0.000), best corrected distance vision ( r=-0.293, P=0.033), best corrected near vision ( r=-0.460, P=0.001), and reading acuity ( r=-0.558, P=0.000) by single factor correlation analysis. Further analysis with multiple linear regression showed that reading acuity, gender, education level, and reading habits were significantly correlated with reading speed ( β=-283.312, 28.303, -37.700, -45.505; P=0.000, 0.022, 0.019, 0.023). Totally 22 AMD patients aged 77.4±8.2 (59-90) years old joined the study from September 2016 to August 2018, including 16 males and 6 females. The median reading speed was 118 characters/min. Compared with the normally-sighted elderly, there were more males in AMD patients ( χ 2=3.981, P=0.046). They were older ( t=-4.285, P=0.000), with significant poorer visual acuity ( t=-6.176, P=0.000) and lower reading speed ( t=-5.719, P=0.000). Significant correlation was found between reading speed and best binocular distance or near vision, reading acuity and contrast sensitivity ( r=-0.771, -0.805, -0.776, 0.511; P=0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.015), no statistic relationship was found between reading speed and age( r=0.021, P=0.926) or gender( Z=-0.382, P=0.703) in AMD patients. Conclusions:The reading speed of normally- sighted people declined with age. Reading acuity may be a better predictive factor than distance vision for reading function. Compared with normally-sighted group, the reading acuity and reading speed of AMD patients was significantly lower. The main factor affecting their reading speed was the severity of their visual impairment.

An investigation of bacterial epidemiology and an analysis of bacterial resistance to antibiotics in a burn unit from 1993 to 1999 / 中华烧伤杂志

<p><b>OBJECTIVE</b>To investigate the bacterial epidemiology in our department in recent years, so as to provide assistance to the clinical management of burn patients.</p><p><b>METHODS</b>A retrospective analysis was carried out with 345 bacterial cultures from burn wound and drug-sensitivity results in 784 burn patients during 1993 to 1999 in our department.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>(1) Among all the bacteria, gram negative (G(-)) bacilli accounted for 56.8%, while gram positive (G(+)) cocci and fungi in 3.8%. (2) Among all the G(+) cocci, 65.4% were Staphylococcus aureus, in which MRSA was identified in 53.9% during 1993 - 1999 and in 64.3% during 1998 - 1999. Pseudomonus aeruginosa accounted for 37.2% of all G(-) bacilli. (3) The 3rd generation of cephalosporins shew excellent anti-bacterial capabilities, but the bacterial resistance to them increased significantly. (4) MRSA was very sensitive to both vancomycin and norvancomycin with no report of antibiotic resistance to them.</p><p><b>CONCLUSION</b>G(-) bacilli were still predominant bacteria in our burn department when compared to G(+) cocci. The 3rd generation cephalosporins are the routine antibiotics for the present. But resistant bacteria are on the increase. There are also more and more MRSAs isolated from burn wounds. For this, vancomycin and norvancomycin should be preferably used.</p>

Clinical studies of D-timolol vs L-timolol / 中华实验眼科杂志

ObjectiveTo evaluate the anti-glaucoma effect of 1％ D-timolol on patients with primary open-angle glaucoma （POAG） and ocular hypertension （OH）．MethodsThirty-six patients with POAG or OH were included．They were divided into two groups randomly for treating with either 1％ D-timolol or 0.5% L-timolol twice daily．The intraocular pressure（IOP） changes and side effects on eyes and cardiovascular system were noticed．Data of visual field and ocular blood flow were compared with the baseline after given the eyedrops for 3 month．ResultsAfter given one drop of the drug，intraocular pressure dropped significantly in both of the two groups．The IOP day curve at 1 month also dropped when compared with the baseline in both groups．There was no significant difference between the two drugs in magitude of hypotensive effect after 3 months．And the higher the IOP was，the more the IOP dropped when using D-timolol．There were no serious side effects noted．No significant change of ocular blood flow was found by color doppler imagine．Mean sensitivity of visual field was raised significantly in D-timolol-treated group，while in L-timolol-treated group it was not changed much．Conclusion1％ D-timolol is a favorable eyedrop. It is effective and safe for the treatment of glaucoma．