Amy Tianyi Wang

Brown syndrome is an ocular misalignment disorder affecting the superior oblique tendon-trochlea complex. We report a case of a 45-year-old woman with protracted symptoms of presumed idiopathic Brown syndrome later diagnosed as ocular myasthenia gravis. Acquired Brown syndrome secondary to ocular myasthenia gravis has not previously been reported in the literature. Ocular myasthenia gravis should be considered a differential in any patient presenting with vertical strabismus presenting as Brown syndrome.

Background/Objectives: The aim of this study was to examine the incidence and severity of refractive errors that occur following the treatment of retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) with anti-vascular growth factor (anti-VEGF) agents and laser photocoagulation. Methods: A review of the literature using three databases (PubMed, Embase, Medline) was performed using appropriate search terms, and the results of the relevant studies were compiled and extracted for descriptive analysis. Results: Sixty articles were identified. The cohorts in the studies were treated with either anti-VEGF monotherapy, laser photocoagulation, or a combination, with a high prevalence of myopia, ranging from 0 to 47.7%. Refractive errors of myopia, hypermetropia, astigmatism, and anisometropia were considered in infants who received ocular interventions for ROP. Conclusions: In comparison to laser photocoagulation, anti-VEGF monotherapy appears to yield lower levels of myopia and anisometropia; however, the incidence of hypermetropia and astigmatism is variable among cohort groups treated with different anti-VEGF agents.

This paper assesses the preferred treatment patterns for retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) and examine trends in anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) use for ROP. Methods: A retrospective survey consisting of 14 questions was distributed to paediatric ophthalmology interest groups internationally. Main outcome measures included treatment patterns, proportion of anti-VEGF use in different stages of ROP; and comparison of first-line treatments as well as repeat anti-VEGF treatments. Results: Fifty-four ophthalmologists from 11 different countries responded to the survey. The number of respondents per question, except one, ranged between 50–54. Per annum, there was an average number of 394 infants screened by each respondent. Anti-VEGF was the preferred treatment method for aggressive (A)-ROP (64.1%), Type 1 ROP in zone 1 (71.7%), and Type 1 ROP in posterior zone 2 (56.6%). The majority used laser as the first-line treatment of Type 1 ROP in anterior zone 2 (73.6%) and Type 1 ROP in zone 3 (79.2%). Laser was the preferred treatment modality utilised in infants requiring repeat treatment following anti-VEGF injection. The preferred anti-VEGF agent was bevacizumab administered at a dose of 0.625 mg. Conclusions: Anti-VEGF as first-line therapy has been increasing. Anti-VEGF appears to be the first-line treatment of choice for A-ROP, Type 1 ROP in zone 1 and posterior zone 2 and laser for Type 1 ROP in anterior zone 2 and zone 3.

S accepted at scientific meetings are often not subsequently published. Data on publication rates are largely from subspecialty and surgical studies. The aims of this study were to 1) determine publication rates of abstracts presented at a general internal medicine meeting; 2) describe research activity among academic general internists; 3) identify factors associated with publication and with the impact factor of the journal of publication; and 4) evaluate for publication bias. Retrospective cohort study. All scientific abstracts presented at the Society of General Internal Medicine 2009 Annual Meeting. Publication rates were determined by searching for full-text publications in MEDLINE. Data were abstracted regarding authors’ institution, research topic category, number of study sites, sample size, study design, statistical significance (p value and confidence interval) in abstract and publication, journal of publication, publication date, and journal impact factor. Of the 578 abstracts analyzed, 274 (47.4%) were subsequently published as a full article in a peer-reviewed journal indexed in MEDLINE. In a multivariable model adjusting for institution site, research topic, number of study sites, study design, sample size, and abstract results, publication rates for academic general internists were highest in the areas of medical education (52.5%, OR 5.05, 95% CI 1.57–17.25, reference group Veterans Affairs (VA)-based research, publication rate 36.7%), mental health/substance use (67.7%, OR 4.16, 95% CI 1.39–13.06), and aging/geriatrics/end of life (65.7%, OR 3.31, 95% CI 1.15–9.94, p = 0.01 across topics). Publication rates were higher for multicenter studies than single-institution studies (52.4% vs. 40.4%, OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.10–2.52, p = 0.04 across categories). Randomized controlled trials had higher publication rates than other study designs (66.7% vs. 45.9%, OR 2.72, 95% CI 1.30–5.94, p = 0.03 across study designs). Studies with positive results did not predict higher publication rates than negative studies (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.6–1.31, p = 0.21). This study demonstrated that 47.4% of abstracts presented at a general internal medicine national conference were subsequently published in a peer-reviewed journal indexed in MEDLINE.