ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: It has been postulated that intraocular pressure, an important glaucoma risk factor, correlates positively with arterial blood pressure (blood pressure). However, results of experimental and clinical studies are often contradictory. It is hypothesized that, in some hypertensive patients, disturbances in intraocular pressure regulation may depend on biological effects of blood borne hormones underlying a particular type of hypertension, rather than on blood pressure level itself. REVIEW: This review compares the effects of hormones on blood pressure and intraocular pressure, in order to identify a hormonal profile of hypertensive patients with an increased risk of intraocular pressure surge. The PUBMED database was searched to identify pre-clinical and clinical studies investigating the role of angiotensin II, vasopressin, adrenaline, noradrenaline, prostaglandins, and gaseous transmitters in the regulation of blood pressure and intraocular pressure. RESULTS: Studies included in the review suggest that intraocular and blood pressures often follow a different pattern of response to the same hormone. For example, vasopressin increases blood pressure, but decreases intraocular pressure. In contrast, high level of nitric oxide decreases blood pressure, but increases intraocular pressure. CONCLUSIONS: Arterial hypertension is associated with altered levels of blood borne hormones. Contradicting results of studies on the relationship between arterial hypertension and intraocular pressure might be partially explained by diverse effects of hormones on arterial and intraocular pressures. Further studies are needed to evaluate if hormonal profiling may help to identify glaucoma-prone patients.
Subject(s)
Glaucoma/physiopathology , Hypertension/physiopathology , Intraocular Pressure/physiology , Blood Pressure/physiology , Humans , Neurophysins/metabolism , Protein Precursors/metabolism , Vasopressins/metabolismABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Physician review portals are becoming increasingly popular among patients and often serve as a primary advisory tool during the search for a doctor. However, it has not been established whether these platforms favor leaders of the field; i.e., physicians with high academic rank. Here, we assessed online ratings of US ophthalmologists, selected for their outstanding scientific performance. METHODS: This cross-sectional, Internet-based study was performed in September 2016. First, we selected US ophthalmologists who published at least one manuscript or conference abstract that reached at least 100 citations from 2006 to 2016. Second, academic impact of preselected physicians, measured by overall number of citations or Hirsch index, was correlated with their ratings on two physician review portals: healthgrades.com and zocdoc.com. RESULTS: We selected 105 ophthalmologists who met established criteria. A total of 78 were rated on healthgrades.com, but only two were rated on zocdoc.com. The average rating on healthgrades.com was 4.2 +/-0.9, similar to the previously reported US mean for a physician (â¼4). The rating did not correlate with the number of citations or with Hirsh index. CONCLUSIONS: Highly cited ophthalmologist are not rated proportionately to their scientific achievements. Their reviews are positive, but do not stand out in comparison to other physicians. Additionally, we found that this group of ophthalmologists might be significantly underrepresented on particular review websites.
Subject(s)
Clinical Competence , Internet , Ophthalmologists/standards , Patient-Centered Care/standards , Physician-Patient Relations , Humans , United StatesSubject(s)
Acrylamides/adverse effects , Aquaculture , Cnidarian Venoms/adverse effects , Keratitis/chemically induced , Occupational Diseases/chemically induced , Animals , Anthozoa , Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Drug Therapy, Combination , Female , Glucocorticoids/therapeutic use , Humans , Keratitis/diagnosis , Keratitis/drug therapy , Middle Aged , Occupational Diseases/diagnosis , Occupational Diseases/drug therapy , Ofloxacin/therapeutic use , Prednisolone/therapeutic useABSTRACT
Multiple sclerosis is a chronic demyelinating disease of the central nervous system that occurs primarily in young adults. There is no single diagnostic test to recognize the disease. The diagnostic criteria, based on clinical examination and laboratory tests, have changed considerably over time. The first guidelines involved only the results of the patient's neurological examination. The diagnostic criteria developed by Poser in 1983 were based largely on the results of additional tests, including visual evoked potentials and analysis of cerebrospinal fluid. The McDonald criteria, developed in 2001 and updated in 2005 and 2010, reflected the diagnostic breakthrough caused by widespread use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Currently, the diagnosis depends largely on the results of the MRI examination. An early diagnosis is particularly important for starting disease-modifying treatments.
