Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2017
A comparison of the self-reported dry eye practices of New Zealand optometrists and ophthalmologists.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Xue Ally L, Downie Laura E, Ormonde Susan E, Craig Jennifer P
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The aim of this cross-sectional survey was to evaluate the self-reported clinical practices of New Zealand optometrists and ophthalmologists with respect to the diagnosis and management of dry eye disease. It also sought to compare these behaviours with the current research evidence base.
METHODS: An anonymous survey was distributed electronically to New Zealand eye care clinicians (optometrists n = 614, ophthalmologists n = 113) to determine practitioner interest in dry eye disease, practice experience, practice modality, preferred diagnostic and management strategies, and information used to guide patient care.
RESULTS: Respondents from both professions (response rates, optometrists: 26%, ophthalmologists: 26%) demonstrated similarly strong knowledge of tear film assessment. Ninety percent of respondents ranked patient symptoms and meibomian gland evaluation as the most valuable and common diagnostic approaches. Conversely, standardised grading scales and validated dry eye questionnaires were infrequently adopted. Both professions tailored dry eye management according to severity, indicating eyelid hygiene and non-preserved lubricants as mainstay therapies. Ophthalmologists prescribed systemic tetracyclines significantly more often than optometrists for moderate (48% vs 11%) and severe (72% vs 32%) dry eye (p < 0.05). Continuing education conferences were acknowledged as the primary information source used to guide dry eye management practices by both professions.
CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with evidence-based guidelines, New Zealand eye care professionals combine subjective and objective techniques to diagnose and stratify dry eye management according to disease severity. There is potential to improve dissemination of research evidence into clinical practice, with continuing education via professional conferences the favoured mode of delivery.
METHODS: An anonymous survey was distributed electronically to New Zealand eye care clinicians (optometrists n = 614, ophthalmologists n = 113) to determine practitioner interest in dry eye disease, practice experience, practice modality, preferred diagnostic and management strategies, and information used to guide patient care.
RESULTS: Respondents from both professions (response rates, optometrists: 26%, ophthalmologists: 26%) demonstrated similarly strong knowledge of tear film assessment. Ninety percent of respondents ranked patient symptoms and meibomian gland evaluation as the most valuable and common diagnostic approaches. Conversely, standardised grading scales and validated dry eye questionnaires were infrequently adopted. Both professions tailored dry eye management according to severity, indicating eyelid hygiene and non-preserved lubricants as mainstay therapies. Ophthalmologists prescribed systemic tetracyclines significantly more often than optometrists for moderate (48% vs 11%) and severe (72% vs 32%) dry eye (p < 0.05). Continuing education conferences were acknowledged as the primary information source used to guide dry eye management practices by both professions.
CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with evidence-based guidelines, New Zealand eye care professionals combine subjective and objective techniques to diagnose and stratify dry eye management according to disease severity. There is potential to improve dissemination of research evidence into clinical practice, with continuing education via professional conferences the favoured mode of delivery.