ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To compare early visual quality of small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) versus laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) in terms of low contrast acuity. METHODS: A secondary analysis was performed using a harmonized dataset derived from two completed prospective cohort studies on active-duty military service members undergoing either SMILE (n = 37), wavefront-guided (WFG) LASIK (n = 51), or wavefront-optimized (WFO) LASIK (n = 56). Night vision and photopic and mesopic low contrast visual acuity (LCVA) up to 3 months postoperatively were compared between groups. RESULTS: Compared to SMILE-treated eyes, WFG LASIK-treated eyes had significantly better night vision and photopic LCVA at 1 month postoperatively (beta = -0.039, P = .016; beta = -0.043, P = .007, respectively). WFO LASIK-treated eyes had significantly better photopic LCVA at 1 month postoperatively (beta = -0.039, P = .012) but had worse mesopic LCVA at 3 months postoperatively (beta = 0.033, P = .015) versus SMILE-treated eyes. CONCLUSIONS: SMILE and LASIK, on either a WFG or WFO laser platform, yielded excellent outcomes, but LCVA seemed to recover quicker following LASIK compared to SMILE. [J Refract Surg. 2024;40(9):e667-e671.].
Subject(s)
Contrast Sensitivity , Corneal Stroma , Keratomileusis, Laser In Situ , Lasers, Excimer , Myopia , Visual Acuity , Humans , Keratomileusis, Laser In Situ/methods , Visual Acuity/physiology , Myopia/surgery , Myopia/physiopathology , Prospective Studies , Adult , Male , Lasers, Excimer/therapeutic use , Female , Corneal Stroma/surgery , Contrast Sensitivity/physiology , Young Adult , Refraction, Ocular/physiology , Corneal Surgery, Laser/methods , Night Vision/physiology , Military Personnel , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
Social media allows for easy access and sharing of information in real-time. Since the beginning of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, social media has been used as a tool for public health officials to spread valuable information. However, many Internet users have also used it to spread misinformation, commonly referred to as "fake news." The spread of misinformation can lead to detrimental effects on the infrastructure of healthcare and society. The purpose of this scoping review was to identify the sources and impact of COVID-19 misinformation on social media and examine potential strategies for limiting the spread of misinformation. A systemized search of PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science electronic databases using search terms relevant to the COVID-19 pandemic, social media, misinformation, or disinformation was conducted. Identified titles and abstracts were screened to select original reports and cross-checked for duplications. Using both inclusion and exclusion criteria, results from the initial literature search were screened by independent reviewers. After quality assessment and screening for relevance, 20 articles were included in the final review. The following three themes emerged: (1) sources of misinformation, (2) impact of misinformation, and (3) strategies to limit misinformation about COVID-19 on social media. Misinformation was commonly shared on social media platforms such as Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, messaging applications, and personal websites. The utilization of social media for the dissemination of evidence-based information was shown to be beneficial in combating misinformation. The evidence suggests that both individual websites and social media networks play a role in the spread of COVID-19 misinformation. This practice may potentially exacerbate the severity of the pandemic, create mistrust in public health experts, and impact physical and mental health. Efforts to limit and prevent misinformation require interdisciplinary, multilevel approaches involving government and public health agencies, social media corporations, and social influencers.