Nd:YAG Laser Capsulotomy: Efficacy and Outcomes Performed by Optometrists.

SIGNIFICANCE: An increasing number of optometrists are performing Nd:YAG laser capsulotomy procedures; however, there is limited published information on the outcomes of these procedures. PURPOSE: This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of capsulotomy procedures performed by optometrists. METHODS: Subjects diagnosed with posterior capsule opacification causing reduced vision and subjective visual complaints were recruited for this study. A baseline examination was performed to ensure that the subjects met all the necessary criteria. The procedure was performed by a licensed doctor of optometry at six different clinics, and each subject was monitored for visual outcome and any potential complications. RESULTS: Subjects' Snellen visual acuity improved from an average of 20/40 to 20/23 ( P < .001) with no complications of increased intraocular pressure, inflammation, visually significant lens pitting, macular edema, or retinal detachment. Of 78 subjects who responded to a post-procedure survey, 77 (99%) reported subjective improvement in vision after capsulotomy. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the outcomes of this study, YAG laser capsulotomies are effective treatments to improve patient vision that can be safely and effectively performed by optometrists.

Synthesis, characterization, and photoluminescent studies of three-coordinate Cu(i)-NHC complexes bearing unsymmetrically-substituted dipyridylamine ligands.

A series of heteroleptic three-coordinate Cu(i) complexes bearing monodentate N-heterocyclic carbene (NHC) ligands of the type 1,3-bis(2,6-diisopropylphenyl)imidazol-2-ylidene (IPr) and 1,3-bis(2,6-diisopropylphenyl)imidazolidin-2-ylidene (SIPr), and bidentate N-donor ligands of the type unsymmetrically-substituted dimethyl dipyridylamine (Me2Hdpa) and bis(mesityl)biazanaphthenequinone (mesBIAN) have been synthesized. The complexes [Cu(IPr)(3,4'-Me2Hdpa)]PF6, 1; [Cu(IPr)(3,5'-Me2Hdpa)]PF6, 2; [Cu(IPr)(3,6'-Me2Hdpa)]PF6, 3; [Cu(IPr)(mesBIAN)]PF6, 6; [Cu(SIPr)(3,4'-Me2Hdpa)]PF6, 7; [Cu(SIPr)(3,5'-Me2Hdpa)]PF6, 8; and [Cu(SIPr)(3,3'-Me2Hdpa)]PF6, 11 have been characterized by 1H and 13C NMR spectroscopies, elemental analysis, cyclic voltammetry, and photophysical studies in solid and solution phase. Single crystal X-ray structures were obtained for all complexes except 11. The crystallographic data reveal a mononuclear structure for all complexes with the copper atom ligated by one C and two N atoms. The UV-Vis absorption spectra of all dipyridylamine complexes in CH2Cl2 show a strong ligand-centered absorption band around 250 nm and a strong metal-to-ligand charge transfer (MLCT) band around 300 nm. When irradiated with UV light, the complexes exhibit strong emission maxima at 453-482 nm with photoluminescence quantum yields (PLQY) ranging from 0.21 to 0.87 in solid state. While the PLQY values are comparable to those of the symmetrical [Cu(IPr)(Me2Hdpa)]PF6 complexes, a stabilizing CH-π interaction has been reduced in the current systems. In particular, complex 3 lacks any strong CH-π interaction, but emits more efficiently than 1 and 2 wherein the interactions exist. Structural data analysis was performed to clarify the role of ligands' plane angle and the NH/CH⋯F interactions to the observed light interaction of unsymmetrical [Cu(NHC)(Me2Hdpa)]PF6 complexes. DFT calculations were performed to assist in the assignment of the electronic structure and excited state behavior of the complexes.

Peer review versus editorial review and their role in innovative science.

Peer review is a widely accepted instrument for raising the quality of science. Peer review limits the enormous unstructured influx of information and the sheer amount of dubious data, which in its absence would plunge science into chaos. In particular, peer review offers the benefit of eliminating papers that suffer from poor craftsmanship or methodological shortcomings, especially in the experimental sciences. However, we believe that peer review is not always appropriate for the evaluation of controversial hypothetical science. We argue that the process of peer review can be prone to bias towards ideas that affirm the prior convictions of reviewers and against innovation and radical new ideas. Innovative hypotheses are thus highly vulnerable to being "filtered out" or made to accord with conventional wisdom by the peer review process. Consequently, having introduced peer review, the Elsevier journal Medical Hypotheses may be unable to continue its tradition as a radical journal allowing discussion of improbable or unconventional ideas. Hence we conclude by asking the publisher to consider re-introducing the system of editorial review to Medical Hypotheses.