ABSTRACT
Background and Objective: Pregnant women are the most susceptible group for Iodine deficiency disorder (IDD) whose neonate are at the risk of brain impairment, if they are iodine deficient in utero. The study was carried out to analyze the concerns and effects regarding iodized salt and IDD in women seeking antenatal care in Pakistan. Methods: A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted in Obstetrics OPD at Civil Hospital Karachi from April 2017 to January 2018. In this study, antenatal care seeking women (n=360) visiting obstetric outpatient department (OPD) at public sector tertiary care hospital of Karachi were interviewed face to face using a structured questionnaire. Systematic random sampling method was employed. Kruskal Wallis test was applied to assess the significance among study variables. Results: Sixty-three (63.6%) of pregnant women heard about iodized salt. Approximately 40.6% of them received iodized salt related information through mass media. Ninety (90.6%) were ignorant that their unborn child needs iodine for brain development. A statistically significant association was found between the educational status (p<0.001), household income (p<0.001), age (p=0.016), ethnicity (p=0.018), trimester (p=0.005) with the knowledge of study participants regarding iodized salt and IDD. Conclusion: There is an immense need to address the present concerns of women seeking antenatal care by advocacy and health education on individual and at mass level regarding the use of iodized salt among women seeking antenatal care. Advocacy can be done by governmental initiatives, medical personnel and through mass media in all tertiary care hospitals of Pakistan.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Primary aim was to review the literature on the prevalence of diabetic retinopathy (DR) and Vision threatening diabetic retinopathy (VTDR) in Pakistan. METHODS: A search of the bibliographic databases (Medline, Pub med, and Google scholar) was conducted from 1990 to March 2017. Articles about prevalence of DR and VTDR in Pakistan were retrieved and scrutinized. The studies satisfying the inclusion/exclusion criteria were considered for detail review. RESULTS: Forty one articles on prevalence of DR were traced out. Exclusion and inclusion criteria were met in 29 studies. In selected studies (29), pooled Prevalence of DR was found to be 28.78% with a variation of 10.6% to 91.3%. Out of 29 studies, DR was classified in 19 studies. Pooled Prevalence of VTDR in these 19 studies was found to be 28.2% (variation of 4% to 46.3%) of patient with retinopathy and 8.6% of all diabetics. CONCLUSION: A great variation in the values of DR and VTDR was observed in this study. Researchers suggest a community based study with uniform methodology to find out a comparable value of prevalence of DR and VTDR in all provinces of Pakistan.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To determine the visual outcome of laser treatment in clinically significant macular edema. METHODS: This interventional and qausi experimental study was carried out at Diabetic Association of Pakistan (DAP) during January 2011 and December 2012. Approval was taken from Research Ethical Committee of Isra Postgraduate Institute of Ophthalmology. Records of 925 eyes of 464 patients with "Clinical Significant macular edema" (CSME), treated with laser photocoagulation were analyzed. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at the time of presentation and at the last follow up, minimum of one year and maximum of 45 months was recorded and compared. SPSS version 20.0 was used to analyze the data. RESULTS: Diabetic retinopathy was found in 20.3% (1777) of 8742 diabetic attending DAP Hospital" amongst whom 39.6% (705) had Sight threatening diabetic retinopathy. Laser was advised in 96.4% (680) individuals, accepted by 70.5% (480) individuals. Amongst 960 eyes of 480 patients who accepted laser, 925 eyes had clinically significant macular edema and 35 eyes had PDR who are not included in this study. Amongst 925 eyes with CSME, Grid laser was done in 913 eyes (99%) and focal laser was done in 12 eyes (1%). After a follow up of 12 to 45 months, it was found that best corrected visual acuity had declined in 2.4% (22) eyes, stabilized in 67% (619) eyes and improved in 30.7% (284) eyes. One line improvement on Snellen's chart was fond in 21.3% (197) eyes, 2 lines in 8% (74) eyes, 3 lines in 1.2% (12) eyes and 4 lines in one (0.1%) eye with p-value of 0.000. CONCLUSION: Laser therapy is an effective treatment in stabilizing/improving the vision in diabetic macular edema particularly at those centers where only Argon Laser is available and OCF, FFA facilities do not exist.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To determine the frequency and types of age-related cataract in type 2 diabetic patients compared to non-diabetics. METHODS: This comparative, cross-sectional study was carried out at Al-Ibrahim Eye Hospital, Karachi, from July 2014 to June 2015, and comprised both diabetics and non-diabetics. All patients were selected from the out-patient department and had their full ocular examination done, including retinal screening of diabetic patients with non-mydriatic fundus camera. The criterion for diagnosis of cataract was sufficiently advanced lens opacity that caused impaired vision/un-gradable images. Cataract was classified on a morphological basis into cortical, nuclear, posterior sub-capsular and mixed types. RESULTS: Of the 49,384 patients, 4,556(9.2%) were diabetics and 44,828(90.8%) were non-diabetics. Among the diabetics, cataract was found in 1,956(42.9%) compared to 7,050(15.7%) in non-diabetics. Adjusted odds ratio (95% confidence interval) between the two groups was 4.40 (range: 4.11-4.71) (p<0.001). Male-to-female adjusted odds ratio (95% confidence interval) was 2.05 (range: 1.95-2.15) (p<0.001). Nuclear sclerosis was the commonest type in 2,123(46.6%) cataract cases in diabetics whereas posterior sub-capsular cataract was the commonest type in 14,480(32.3%) cases among the non-diabetics. CONCLUSIONS: Cataract was four times more common in diabetics and twice more frequent in men. Nuclear sclerosis was the commonest type of cataract in diabetic patients.
