Dexamethasone/Povidone Eye Drops versus Artificial Tears for Treatment of Presumed Viral Conjunctivitis: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

PURPOSE: To determine whether topical dexamethasone 0.1%/povidone-iodine 0.4% reduces the duration of presumed viral conjunctivitis better than artificial tears and whether the treatment relieves the symptoms of this disease. METHODS: Randomized, masked and controlled trial. One-hundred twenty-two patients with a clinical diagnosis of presumed viral conjunctivitis were randomized to either the treatment group or the control group. Physicians and patients were masked to the treatment. Swabs were taken from the conjunctival fornix for adenovirus PCR analyses. Patients in the treatment group received topical dexamethasone 0.1%/povidone-iodine 0.4% eye drops four times daily, and patients in the placebo group received artificial tears four times daily, both for seven days. Symptoms were recorded on the day of recruitment and at the time of a follow-up examination 5, 10 and 30 d later. The main outcome was duration of the disease. The others outcomes were overall discomfort, itching, foreign body sensation, tearing, redness, eyelid swelling, side effects of the eye drops, intraocular pressure and the incidence of subepithelial corneal infiltrates. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between the treatment group and the control group in terms of the patients' symptoms, intraocular pressure and incidence of subepithelial cornea infiltrates during the entire follow-up period. Patients of the treatment group reported more stinging (p < 0.001) and a shorter conjunctivitis duration (9.4 ± 4.6 d in the dexamethasone 0.1%/povidone-iodine 0.4% group versus 11.8 ± 4.9 d in the artificial tears group, p = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: The use of topical dexamethasone 0.1%/povidone-iodine 0.4% eye drops four times daily appears to reduce the duration of conjunctivitis, although it causes more stinging than artificial tears.

Epiretinal membrane formation associated with idiopathic macular telangiectasia: case report.

A 46-year-old woman complained of blurred and distorted vision in both eyes. Ophthalmic examination showed that visual acuity was 20/200 for the right eye and counting fingers left eye. Fundoscopy revealed perimacular hemorrhages, aneurismal dilatation of the vessels in the posterior pole, and a white and elevated lesion adjacent to vascular changes. We report a case of idiopathic macular telangiectasia and epiretinal membrane that occurs concomitantly. To our knowledge, this is the first report that describes an association between idiopathic macular telangiectasia and epiretinal membrane formation.

Epiretinal membrane formation associated with idiopathic macular telangiectasia: case report / Formação de membrana epirretiniana associada a telangectasia macular idiopática: relato de caso

A 46-year-old woman complained of blurred and distorted vision in both eyes. Ophthalmic examination showed that visual acuity was 20/200 for the right eye and counting fingers left eye. Fundoscopy revealed perimacular hemorrhages, aneurismal dilatation of the vessels in the posterior pole, and a white and elevated lesion adjacent to vascular changes. We report a case of idiopathic macular telangiectasia and epiretinal membrane that occurs concomitantly. To our knowledge, this is the first report that describes an association between idiopathic macular telangiectasia and epiretinal membrane formation.

Paciente feminina de 46 anos apresentando queixa de embaçamento visual e visão distorcida em ambos os olhos. Ao exame oftalmológico, sua acuidade visual era 20/200 no olho direito e conta dedos a 5 metros no olho esquerdo. A fundoscopia revelou hemorragias perimaculares, dilatação aneurismática dos vasos no polo posterior e uma lesão elevada e esbranquiçada ao lado das alterações vasculares. Relatamos um caso de telangectasia macular idiopática e membrana epirretiniana que ocorreram concomitantemente. Até o momento, não existem relatos de associação entre telangiectasia macular e membrana epirretiniana.

Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole versus placebo to reduce the risk of recurrences of Toxoplasma gondii retinochoroiditis: randomized controlled clinical trial.

PURPOSE: To compare the effects of trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole vs placebo in reducing the risk of recurrences of Toxoplasma gondii retinochoroiditis. DESIGN: Single-center, prospective randomized double-masked clinical trial. METHODS: A total of 95 patients from Campinas, Brazil, with active recurrent Toxoplasma gondii retinochoroiditis were included. The initially active toxoplasmosis lesions were successfully treated in all cases using trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (800 mg/160 mg) twice daily for 45 days. Subsequently, 5 patients dropped out of the study. The remaining patients were randomized to Group 1 (trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole tablet every 2 days) or Group 2 (identical placebo tablet every 2 days). Randomization was 1:1, was stratified by sex, and used block sizes of 4. The primary outcome was recurrent toxoplasmosis retinochoroiditis within 1 year, and the secondary outcome was a 1-year change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) (ETDRS chart). RESULTS: The incidence of recurrent toxoplasmosis retinochoroiditis within 12 months was 0 of 46 (0%) and 6 of 47 (12.80%) in the trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole and placebo groups, respectively (P = .026). Visual acuity improvements in the 2 groups were similar. No treatment-limiting toxicity was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole therapy resulted in a 100% reduction in the recurrence of Toxoplasma gondii retinochoroiditis over 1 year of treatment.

Clinical trials in Brazilian journals of ophthalmology: where we are.

PURPOSE: To compare clinical trials published in Brazilian journals of ophthalmology and in foreign journals of ophthalmology with respect to the number of citations and the quality of reporting [by applying the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement writing standards]. METHODS: The sample of this systematic review comprised the two Brazilian journals of ophthalmology indexed at Science Citation Index Expanded and six of the foreign journals of ophthalmology with highest Impact Factor® according ISI. All clinical trials (CTs) published from January 2009 to December 2010 at the Brazilians journals and a 1:1 randomized sample of the foreign journals were included. The primary outcome was the number of citations through the end of 2011. Subgroup analysis included language. The secondary outcome included likelihood of citation (cited at least once versus no citation), and presence or absence of CONSORT statement indicators. RESULTS: The citation counts were statistically significantly higher (P<0.001) in the Foreign Group (10.50) compared with the Brazilian Group (0.45). The likelihood citation was statistically significantly higher (P<0.001) in the Foreign Group (20/20 - 100%) compared with the Brazilian Group (8/20 - 40%). The subgroup analysis of the language influence in Brazilian articles showed that the citation counts were statistically significantly higher in the papers published in English (P<0.04). Of 37 possible CONSORT items, the mean for the Foreign Group was 20.55 and for the Brazilian Group was 13.65 (P<0.003). CONCLUSION: The number of citations and the quality of reporting of clinical trials in Brazilian journals of ophthalmology still are low when compared with the foreign journals of ophthalmology with highest Impact Factor®.

E-learning as a complement to presential teaching of blindness prevention: a randomized clinical trial / 'E-learning' como um complemento do ensino presencial de prevenção da cegueira: ensaio clínico

OBJECTIVE: To investigate if E-learning material improves the basal student knowledge level before attending the presential class of blindness prevention (BP) and if helps to fix this information one-month after the class. METHODS: Fourth-year medical students were randomly assigned to have a presential class of BP (Traditional group = TG) or to have a presential class of BP plus an additional E-learning material (E-learning group = ELG). This material was e-mailed one week before the presential class. The students were submitted to a multiple-choice test (with three options each) with seven questions immediately before the presential class, immediately after the class, and one-month later. The three tests had the same questions; however, the answers options were distributed in different sequences. The primary outcome was immediate pretest score. The secondary outcomes were immediate posttest score and one-month posttest score. RESULTS: Among the 120 fourth-year medical students, a random sample of 34 students was assigned to the TG and 34 students was assigned to the ELG. The two groups showed similar immediate posttest score (TG=6.8 and ELG=6.9; P<.754), but the differences at the immediate pretest score (TG=3.6 and ELG=4.7; P<.001), and at the one-month posttest score, were significant (TG=6.1 and ELG=6.8; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: The pretest and the one-month posttest results suggested that the E-learning material acts as an effective complementary tool of the presential class of blindness prevention.

OBJETIVO: Avaliar se um material disponibilizado através de E-learning antes de aulas presenciais de prevenção da cegueira (PC) melhora o nível de conhecimento basal dos estudantes, e ajuda a manter esse conteúdo um mês após a aula. MÉTODOS: Estudantes do quarto ano do curso médico foram aleatoriamente sorteados para ter aulas presenciais de PC (grupo tradicional = GT) ou ter aulas presenciais precedidas de material adicional por E-learning (grupo E-learning = GEL). Este material foi enviado por correio eletrônico uma semana antes da aula presencial. Os estudantes foram submetidos a testes de múltipla escolha com sete questões (com três alternativas cada) imediatamente antes da aula presencial, imediatamente após a aula, e um mês após a aula. Os três testes tiveram as mesmas questões: entretanto, as respostas foram distribuídas em sequências diferentes. O desfecho primário foi a nota do pré-teste. Os desfechos secundários foram as notas dos pós-teste imediato e do pós-teste tardio. RESULTADOS: Entre os 120 alunos do quarto ano de medicina, uma amostra aleatória de 34 alunos foi selecionada para o grupo GT e 34 alunos para o grupo GEL. Os dois grupos obtiveram nota similar no pós-teste imediato (GT=6.8 e GEL=6.9; P<.754), porém diferenças estatisticamente significativas no pré-teste (GT=3.6 e GEL=4.7; P<.001), e no pós-teste tardio (GT=6.1 e GEL=6.8; P<.001). CONCLUSÃO: Os resultados do pré-teste e do pós-teste tardio sugerem que o E-learning pode ser um complemento eficiente do ensino presencial de prevenção da cegueira.

Clinical trials in Brazilian journals of ophthalmology: where we are / Ensaios clínicos em periódicos brasileiros de oftalmologia: onde estamos

PURPOSE: To compare clinical trials published in Brazilian journals of ophthalmology and in foreign journals of ophthalmology with respect to the number of citations and the quality of reporting [by applying the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement writing standards]. METHODS: The sample of this systematic review comprised the two Brazilian journals of ophthalmology indexed at Science Citation Index Expanded and six of the foreign journals of ophthalmology with highest Impact Factor® according ISI. All clinical trials (CTs) published from January 2009 to December 2010 at the Brazilians journals and a 1:1 randomized sample of the foreign journals were included. The primary outcome was the number of citations through the end of 2011. Subgroup analysis included language. The secondary outcome included likelihood of citation (cited at least once versus no citation), and presence or absence of CONSORT statement indicators. RESULTS: The citation counts were statistically significantly higher (P<0.001) in the Foreign Group (10.50) compared with the Brazilian Group (0.45). The likelihood citation was statistically significantly higher (P<0.001) in the Foreign Group (20/20 - 100%) compared with the Brazilian Group (8/20 - 40%). The subgroup analysis of the language influence in Brazilian articles showed that the citation counts were statistically significantly higher in the papers published in English (P<0.04). Of 37 possible CONSORT items, the mean for the Foreign Group was 20.55 and for the Brazilian Group was 13.65 (P<0.003). CONCLUSION: The number of citations and the quality of reporting of clinical trials in Brazilian journals of ophthalmology still are low when compared with the foreign journals of ophthalmology with highest Impact Factor®.

OBJETIVO: Comparar ensaios clínicos publicados em periódicos brasileiros de oftalmologia e em periódicos estrangeiros de oftalmologia em relação ao número de citações e à qualidade da informação [através da aplicação do Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement]. MÉTODOS: A amostra desta revisão sistemática abrangeu os dois periódicos brasileiras de oftalmologia indexaoas no Science Citation Index Expanded (Grupo Brasileiro) e seis dos periódicos estrangeiros de oftalmologia com maior fator de impacto de acordo com o ISI (Grupo Estrangeiro). Todos os ensaios clínicos, publicados entre janeiro de 2009 a dezembro de 2010, nos dois periódicos brasileiros e numa amostra aleatória 1:1 dos periódicos estrangeiros foram incluídos. O desfecho primário foi o número de citações até o final de 2011. A análise de subgrupos incluiu o idioma. O desfecho secundário incluiu a probabilidade de citação (citado ao menos uma vez versus não citado), e a presença ou ausência de indicadores da declaração CONSORT. RESULTADOS: O número de citações foi significativamente maior (P<0,001) no Grupo Estrangeiro (10,50) em comparação com o Grupo Brasileiro (0,45). A probabilidade de citação foi estatisticamente superior (P<0,001) no Grupo Estrangeiro (20/20-100%) comparado com o Grupo Brasileiro (8/20-41%). A análise de subgrupo sobre a influência da língua em artigos Brasileiros mostrou que o número de citações foi significativamente maior nos artigos publicados em Inglês (P<0,04). Dos 37 itens do CONSORT possíveis, a média para o Grupo Estrangeiro foi de 20,55 e para o Grupo Brasileiro foi 13,65 (P<0,003). CONCLUSÃO: O número de citações e a qualidade da redação dos ensaios clínicos em periódicos Brasileiros de oftalmologia ainda são baixos quando comparados com os periódicos estrangeiros de oftalmologia com mais alto fator de impacto.