Long-term outcomes of vitrectomy for proliferative diabetic retinopathy.

PURPOSE: To investigate the long-term outcomes of patients who underwent vitrectomy for proliferative diabetic retinopathy. METHODS: Cumulative incidences were calculated for low vision (<0.3), re-vitrectomy in the study eye and fellow eye vitrectomy. To identify potential prognostic factors that associate with these outcomes, we used multivariable Cox regression models. RESULTS: In a total of 217 patients, we found 1-, 5- and 10-year cumulative incidences of low vision in the study eye of 24%, 31% and 39%, respectively. For both eyes, these rates were, respectively, 10%, 14% and 14%. Low vision in both eyes was associated with higher age and worse contralateral visual acuity. The 1-, 5- and 10-year cumulative incidences for re-vitrectomy in the study eye were 16%, 27% and 27%, respectively, and for a vitrectomy in the fellow eye 24%, 40% and 54%, respectively. Re-vitrectomy of the study eye was associated with worse contralateral visual acuity, while vitrectomy of the fellow eye was associated with shorter diabetes duration, worse contralateral visual acuity, higher HbA1c level and worse diabetic retinopathy severity stage of the fellow eye. CONCLUSION: Functional visual acuity in at least one eye was achieved or preserved in most patients. After 10 years, about a quarter of all patients underwent a re-vitrectomy, while more than half of the patients needed a vitrectomy of the fellow eye. Knowledge of these long-term outcomes is essential when counselling patients for a vitrectomy.

Media reporting of neuroscience depends on timing, topic and newspaper type.

The rapid developments in neuroscientific techniques raise high expectations among the general public and therefore warrant close monitoring of the translation to the media and daily-life applications. The need of empirical research into neuroscience communication is emphasized by its susceptibility to evoke misconceptions and polarized beliefs. As the mass media are the main sources of information about (neuro-)science for a majority of the general public, the objective of the current research is to quantify how critically and accurately newspapers report on neuroscience as a function of the timing of publication (within or outside of periods of heightened media attention to neuroscience, termed "news waves"), the topic of the research (e.g. development, health, law) and the newspaper type (quality, popular, free newspapers). The results show that articles published during neuroscience news waves were less neutral and more optimistic, but not different in accuracy. Furthermore, the overall tone and accuracy of articles depended on the topic; for example, articles on development often had an optimistic tone whereas articles on law were often skeptical or balanced, and articles on health care had highest accuracy. Average accuracy was rather low, but articles in quality newspapers were relatively more accurate than in popular and free newspapers. Our results provide specific recommendations for researchers and science communicators, to improve the translation of neuroscience findings through the media: 1) Caution is warranted during periods of heightened attention (news waves), as reporting tends to be more optimistic; 2) Caution is also warranted not to follow topic-related biases in optimism (e.g., development) or skepticism (e.g., law); 3) Researchers should keep in mind that overall accuracy of reporting is low, and especially articles in popular and free newspapers provide a minimal amount of details. This indicates that researchers themselves may need to be more active in preventing misconceptions to arise.