The Outcomes of Involutional Ptosis Surgeries in a Single Tertiary Center.

PURPOSE: To report the surgical outcome of anterior approach primary ptosis surgery in a tertiary center and to compare redo surgical rates between different grades of surgeons. METHODS: This is a Retrospective review of series of annual audits. All involutional/aponeurosis-disinsertion ptosis surgeries performed at Moorfields Eye-hospital (MEH) between January 01, 2016 and December 31, 2019 were included. Only primary surgery was included. The following data were collected; number of surgeries per year, number of patients, demographics data, grades of surgeons, success rate, redo surgery rate from different grades of surgeons, complications rate and patients' satisfaction. RESULTS: During the study period, 1191 ptosis surgery were performed, with 899 (75%) cases being involutional/aponeurosis-disinsertion ptosis. The mean redo surgery rate within one year from the primary surgery was 10.5% and the mean complication rate was 1.0%, with 78.95% of patients reported being satisfied with the results of the surgery, having no difference between surgeon's grades. The redo surgery rate was higher for cases performed by a junior surgeon (fellow/registrar) (64.26%) than by a consultant (38.94%). CONCLUSIONS: We report the success rate of a large cohort of primary involutional ptosis surgery performed at the ophthalmic-specialist tertiary center. The success and complication rates are comparable to the literature at 90% and 1%, respectively. Redo surgeries were more frequently required when performed by junior surgeons compared to the consultants, whereas the patient satisfaction level did not differ between different grades of surgeons.

Correction: Impact of COVID-19 on ophthalmic specialist training in the United Kingdom-the trainees' perspective.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper.

Is it fair for a junior doctor's deanery to be largely based on one test: a student's perspective.

The manner in which UK medical students are allocated foundation jobs is a controversial system. As medical students in the UK, we are subject to this system and have found students and junior doctors have varying opinions on it. Ultimately this led us to question, is this is a fair system?

Difficulty in detecting discrepancies in a clinical trial report: 260-reader evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Scientific literature can contain errors. Discrepancies, defined as two or more statements or results that cannot both be true, may be a signal of problems with a trial report. In this study, we report how many discrepancies are detected by a large panel of readers examining a trial report containing a large number of discrepancies. METHODS: We approached a convenience sample of 343 journal readers in seven countries, and invited them in person to participate in a study. They were asked to examine the tables and figures of one published article for discrepancies. 260 participants agreed, ranging from medical students to professors. The discrepancies they identified were tabulated and counted. There were 39 different discrepancies identified. We evaluated the probability of discrepancy identification, and whether more time spent or greater participant experience as academic authors improved the ability to detect discrepancies. RESULTS: Overall, 95.3% of discrepancies were missed. Most participants (62%) were unable to find any discrepancies. Only 11.5% noticed more than 10% of the discrepancies. More discrepancies were noted by participants who spent more time on the task (Spearman's ρ = 0.22, P < 0.01), and those with more experience of publishing papers (Spearman's ρ = 0.13 with number of publications, P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Noticing discrepancies is difficult. Most readers miss most discrepancies even when asked specifically to look for them. The probability of a discrepancy evading an individual sensitized reader is 95%, making it important that, when problems are identified after publication, readers are able to communicate with each other. When made aware of discrepancies, the majority of readers support editorial action to correct the scientific record.