Accuracy and reliability of self-administered visual acuity tests: Systematic review of pragmatic trials.

BACKGROUND: Remote self-administered visual acuity (VA) tests have the potential to allow patients and non-specialists to assess vision without eye health professional input. Validation in pragmatic trials is necessary to demonstrate the accuracy and reliability of tests in relevant settings to justify deployment. Here, published pragmatic trials of these tests were synthesised to summarise the effectiveness of available options and appraise the quality of their supporting evidence. METHODS: A systematic review was undertaken in accordance with a preregistered protocol (CRD42022385045). The Cochrane Library, Embase, MEDLINE, and Scopus were searched. Screening was conducted according to the following criteria: (1) English language; (2) primary research article; (3) visual acuity test conducted out of eye clinic; (4) no clinical administration of remote test; (5) accuracy or reliability of remote test analysed. There were no restrictions on trial participants. Quality assessment was conducted with QUADAS-2. RESULTS: Of 1227 identified reports, 10 studies were ultimately included. One study was at high risk of bias and two studies exhibited concerning features of bias; all studies were applicable. Three trials-of DigiVis, iSight Professional, and Peek Acuity-from two studies suggested that accuracy of the remote tests is comparable to clinical assessment. All other trials exhibited inferior accuracy, including conflicting results from a pooled study of iSight Professional and Peek Acuity. Two studies evaluated test-retest agreement-one trial provided evidence that DigiVis is as reliable as clinical assessment. The three most accurate tests required access to digital devices. Reporting was inconsistent and often incomplete, particularly with regards to describing methods and conducting statistical analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Remote self-administered VA tests appear promising, but further pragmatic trials are indicated to justify deployment in carefully defined contexts to facilitate patient or non-specialist led assessment. Deployment could augment teleophthalmology, non-specialist eye assessment, pre-consultation triage, and autonomous long-term monitoring of vision.

Virtual keratoconus monitoring clinic in a tertiary university hospital in the United Kingdom.

Purpose: To describe a new pathway for virtual keratoconus (KC) monitoring in the corneal department of a tertiary referral center in the UK during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Methods: A virtual outpatient clinic to monitor KC patients (KC PHOTO clinic) was created. All patients from the KC database in our department were included. At each hospital visit, patients' visual acuity and tomography (Pentacam; Oculus, Wetzlar, Germany) were collected by a health-care assistant and an ophthalmic technician, respectively. The results were virtually reviewed by a corneal optometrist to identify stability or progression of KC and discussed with a consultant if needed. Those with progression were contacted by telephone and listed for corneal crosslinking (CXL). Results: From July 2020 until May 2021, 802 patients were invited to attend the virtual KC outpatient clinic. Of them, 536 patients (66.8%) attended and 266 (33.2%) did not attend. After corneal tomography analysis, 351 (65.5%) were stable, 121 (22.6%) showed no definite evidence of progression, and 64 (11.9%) showed progression. Forty-one (64%) patients with progressive KC were listed for CXL and the remaining 23 patients deferred treatment after the pandemic. By converting a face-to-face clinic to a virtual clinic, we were able to increase our capacity by nearly 500 appointments per year. Conclusion: In pandemic times, hospitals have developed novel methods of delivering safe patient care. KC PHOTO is a safe, effective, and innovative method of monitoring KC patients and diagnosing progression. In addition, virtual clinics can increase the clinic capacity tremendously and reduce the need of face-to-face appointments, which is beneficial in pandemic conditions.

Analgesia for retinopathy of prematurity screening: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Premature neonates require regular ophthalmological examination, generally indirect ophthalmoscopy, to screen for retinopathy of prematurity (ROP). Conventional analgesia is provided with topical anesthetic eyedrops and oral sugar solution, but neonates still experience significant pain. Here, the literature base was examined to evaluate the usefulness of other pharmacological analgesics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review was undertaken, adhering to a PROSPERO preregistered protocol in accordance with PRISMA guidelines (identifier CRD42022302459). Electronic databases were searched for primary research articles on pharmacological pain interventions used for ROP screening in neonates. The primary outcome measure was pain scores recorded using validated pain scoring tools, with and without pharmacological interventions in neonates during eye examination. For analysis, studies were separated into two categories: topical anesthesia and alternative pharmacological treatments. RESULTS: Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria. Topical analgesia, oral paracetamol, and intranasal fentanyl were found to be effective in reducing the pain of eye examination. Oral morphine and inhaled nitrous oxide had no significant effect on premature infant pain profile (PIPP) scores during indirect ophthalmoscopy. DISCUSSION: In addition to topical anesthesia, premedication with oral paracetamol is recommended during screening examination for ROP. The routine use of fentanyl is not recommended due to the risk of potential side effects. Non-pharmacological measures, such as sweet oral solutions and comfort techniques should also be employed. Further research is required to determine whether the use of nitrous oxide has a role, and to develop a safe and effective analgesic strategy to fully ameliorate the pain of ROP screening.

Five Cases of Corneal Graft Rejection After Recent COVID-19 Vaccinations and a Review of the Literature.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to report 5 cases of acute corneal graft rejection after COVID-19 vaccination and perform a review of the literature. METHODS: This was a case series and review of literature dated on the October 10, 2021. RESULTS: We describe 5 cases-2 patients with Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (for Fuchs endothelial dystrophy) who presented with acute corneal graft rejection after their first dose of mRNA (BNT162) vaccine. The other 3 patients who had penetrating keratoplasty performed more than 10 years ago for keratoconus presented with acute graft rejection-2 patients after their second dose of adenovirus vector (AZD1222) vaccine and 1 patient after first dose of mRNA (BNT162) vaccine. Three patients were not using any topical steroid treatment at the time of diagnosis of graft rejection. The mean duration between vaccination and onset of symptoms was 16.86 ± 6.96 days for the mRNA vaccine and 17 ± 11.89 days for the adenovirus vector vaccine. CONCLUSIONS: Corneal graft rejection has recently been reported after COVID-19 vaccination. Patients with keratoplasty need to be advised regarding the risk of corneal graft rejection and warning symptoms of rejection after COVID-19 vaccination. Seeking early referral to the emergency department and increasing topical steroids pre-COVID-19 and post-COVID-19 vaccination may reduce the risk of rejection.