Search

Background: Internet video sharing sites allow the free dissemination of educational material. This study investigated the quality and educational content of videos of eye movement disorders posted on such sites., Methods: Educational neurological eye movement videos were identified by entering the titles of the eye movement abnormality into the search boxes of the video sharing sites. Also, suggested links were followed from each video. The number of views, likes, and dislikes for each video were recorded. The videos were then rated for their picture and sound quality. Their educational value was assessed according to whether the video included a description of the eye movement abnormality, the anatomical location of the lesion (if appropriate), and the underlying diagnosis., Results: Three hundred fifty-four of these videos were found on YouTube and Vimeo. There was a mean of 6,443 views per video (range, 1-195,957). One hundred nineteen (33.6%) had no form of commentary about the eye movement disorder shown apart from the title. Forty-seven (13.3%) contained errors in the title or in the text. Eighty (22.6%) had excellent educational value by describing the eye movement abnormality, the anatomical location of the lesion, and the underlying diagnosis. Of these, 30 also had good picture and sound quality. The videos with excellent educational value had a mean of 9.84 "likes" per video compared with 2.37 for those videos without a commentary (P < 0.001). The videos that combined excellent educational value with good picture and sound quality had a mean of 10.23 "likes" per video (P = 0.004 vs videos with no commentary). There was no significant difference in the mean number of "dislikes" between those videos that had no commentary or which contained errors and those with excellent educational value., Conclusions: There are a large number of eye movement videos freely available on these sites; however, due to the lack of peer review, a significant number have poor educational value due to having no commentary or containing errors. The number of "likes" can help to identify videos with excellent educational value but the number of "dislikes" does not help in discerning which videos have poor educational value.

Purpose: To evaluate whether the ophthalmic randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were designed properly, their hypotheses stated clearly, and their conclusions drawn correctly., Design: A systematic review of 206 ophthalmic RCTs., Methods: The objective statement, methods, and results sections and the conclusions of RCTs published in 4 major general clinical ophthalmology journals from 2009 through 2011 were assessed. The clinical objective and specific hypothesis were the main outcome measures., Results: The clinical objective of the trial was presented in 199 (96.6%) studies and the hypothesis was specified explicitly in 56 (27.2%) studies. One hundred ninety (92.2%) studies tested superiority. Among them, 17 (8.3%) studies comparing 2 or more active treatments concluded equal or similar effectiveness between the 2 arms after obtaining insignificant results. There were 5 noninferiority studies and 4 equivalence studies. How the treatments were compared was not mentioned in 1 of the noninferiority studies. Two of the equivalence studies did not specify the equivalence margin and used tests for detecting difference rather than confirming equivalence., Conclusions: The clinical objective commonly was stated, but the prospectively defined hypothesis tended to be understated in ophthalmic RCTs. Superiority was the most common type of comparison. Conclusions made in some of them with negative results were not consistent with the hypothesis, indicating that noninferiority or equivalence may be a more appropriate design. Flaws were common in the noninferiority and equivalence studies. Future ophthalmic researchers should choose the type of comparison carefully, specify the hypothesis clearly, and draw conclusions that are consistent with the hypothesis., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: In ophthalmic randomized controlled trials (RCTs), each subject may have 2 potential data points (i.e., eyes) contributing to the clinical trial. Hence, various study designs may arise requiring different statistical tools. This study aimed to assess the appropriateness of study design, statistical tools used, and reporting of results in ophthalmic RCTs., Design: A systematic review of 69 ophthalmic RCTs., Methods: The study design, sample size calculation, statistical analysis, and reporting methodology of all RCTs published in 4 major general clinical ophthalmology journals in 2009 were assessed., Main Outcome Measures: The study design of each article under review is evaluated., Results: The most common study design was a one-eye design (48%). Within this group, only half described the method of selecting the study eye, among which 5 chose the study eye by random selection. In the remaining trials, there were paired-eye design (13%), subject design (19%), and two-eye design (19%). Among the 13 two-eye design studies, 4 allocated both eyes of the subject to the same group, 4 allocated the eyes to different groups, and 4 did not restrict the allocation. None of these studies adjusted for the clustering effect in sample size calculation. Only 5 studies used statistical methods adjusting for nonindependence., Conclusions: There is currently substantial heterogeneity in the quality among published ophthalmic RCTs in terms of proper use of study design, sample size calculation, randomization method, and statistical tools. Future ophthalmic researchers are suggested to consult a statistician and to follow some guidelines such as the CONSORT statement when performing an RCT to improve further the quality of clinical trial., (Copyright © 2012 American Academy of Ophthalmology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To investigate the use of analytic approaches for eye-specific outcomes in ophthalmology publications., Design: A review of analytic approaches used in original research articles published in ophthalmology journals., Methods: All 161 research articles published in 5 ophthalmology journals in the first 2 months of 2008 were considered. Publications were categorized according to analytic approach: 1 eye selected, both eyes contribute, or per-individual outcome. Studies were considered suboptimal when criteria for eye selection were not provided or when measurements from both eyes were included without interocular correlation being considered. Visual impairment prevalence data were used to illustrate analytic approach choices., Results: Measurements from both eyes were included in 38% of the 112 studies that used statistical inferential techniques. In 31 (74%), there was no mention of possible correlation. Only 7% used statistical methods appropriate for correlated outcomes. In 35 studies (31%), measurements from 1 eye were selected; 31% of these did not provide selection criteria. In 67%, only univariate tests were used. A review of 47 articles published in 2011 produced similar findings. Characteristics of studies were not found to differ according whether the studies were suboptimal. Using a test appropriate for correlated outcomes resulted in a P value 3.5 times that obtained ignoring the correlation., Conclusions: Between-eye correlation seems not to be assessed commonly in ophthalmology publications, although its knowledge aids the choice of analytic approach when eye-specific variables are of interest. Statistical methods appropriate for correlated ocular outcome data are not being applied widely., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)