ABSTRACT Purpose: Lacrimal probing is the treatment of choice for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction that does not have a spontaneous resolution; however, there is no consensus about the best time for probing and if it is superior to other therapies. The present study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of lacrimal probing compared with other treatments/no intervention to treat congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Methods: A systematic review of literature in PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, clinicaltrials.gov, and LILACS databases up to December 2019 was performed. Randomized clinical trials that enrolled children diagnosed with congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction and undergoing lacrimal probing were considered. Data extraction and a risk of bias assessment were conducted independently and in duplicate. The overall quality of evidence for each outcome was conducted using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation classification system. Results: Four randomized clinical trials involving 423 participants were eligible. No statistically significant differences were observed in resolution rates between early probing and observation/late probing (two studies; risk ratio 1.00 [95% confidence interval 0.76-1.33]; p=0.99; low certainty evidence). One study reported better resolution rates with bicanalicular silicone stent intubation compared with late probing in the complex congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction cases subgroup (risk ratio 0.56 [95% confidence interval 0.34-0.92]; p=0.02; moderate certainty evidence). Conclusions: Low certainty evidence suggests that early probing has the same success rate as late probing. Evidence of moderate certainty suggests that late probing has a lower success rate than bicanalicular silastic intubation in patients with complex congenital nasolacrimal duct obstructione.
RESUMO Objetivo: A sondagem lacrimal tem sido o tratamento de escolha para a obstrução lacrimonasal congênita que não apresenta resolução espontânea. Contudo, não há consenso sobre qual é a melhor época para a realização da sondagem e se ela é melhor do que outras terapias. O objetivo foi avaliar a efetividade da sondagem lacrimal no tratamento da obstrução lacrimonasal congênita. Método: Uma revisão sistemática da literatura foi realizada usando as plataformas eletrônicas PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, clinicaltrials.gov e LILACS até o período de dezembro de 2019. Foram considerados ensaios clínicos randomizados envolvendo crianças com obstrução lacrimonasal congênita submetidas a sondagem lacrimal. A extração dos dados e avaliação do risco de viés foram feitas por dois autores independentemente. A análise da qualidade da evidência para cada desfecho foi realizada por meio do sistema GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). Resultados: Quatro ensaios clínicos randomizados foram incluídos, envolvendo 423 participantes. A metanálise mostrou que não houve diferença estatística na resolução da obstrução lacrimonasal congênita entre o grupo submetido à sondagem lacrimal precoce e o submetido à observação/sondagem tardia (2 estudos; risco médio 1.00 [intervalo de confiança de 95% 0.76, 1.33] p=0,99, I2=79%, baixa certeza de evidência). Um estudo evidenciou melhores resultados da intubação bicanalicular com silicone em comparação a sondagem tardia no subgrupo das obstruções lacrimonasais congênitas complexas, (1 estudo; risco médio 0.56 [intervalo de confiança de 95% 0.34, 0.92] p=0,02, moderada certeza de evidência). Conclusões: Há evidências de baixa qualidade de que a sondagem precoce tem a mesma taxa de sucesso que a sondagem tardia. Evidências de moderada certeza sugerem que a sondagem tardia tem menor chance de sucesso do que a intubação bicanalicular com silicone em casos de obstruções lacrimonasais congênitas complexas.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the accuracy of the ROPScore algorithm as a predictor of retinopathy of prematurity (ROP). METHODS: A prospective cohort of 220 preterm infants with a birth weight ≤1500 g and/or gestational age ≤32 weeks was included. The ROPScore was determined in the sixth week of life in 181 infants who then survived until a corrected gestational age of 45 weeks. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV) of the algorithm were analyzed. RESULTS: ROP was found in 17.6% of the preterm infants. The sensitivity of this test for any stage of ROP was 87.5%, while that for severe ROP was 95.4% (21/22 cases). The PPV and NPV were 59.6% and 97%, respectively, for any stage of ROP and 44.7% and 99.25%, respectively, for severe ROP. The ROPScore could therefore hypothetically reduce the number of ophthalmologic examinations required to detect ROP by 71.8%. CONCLUSION: The ROPScore is a useful screening tool for ROP and may optimize examinations and especially the identification of severe ROP.
ABSTRACT The authors report a case of bilateral endogenous fungal endophthalmitis occurred after decompression nephrostomy due to secondary obstructive pyelonephritis the treated nephrolithiasis initially with intravitreal voriconazole (100 mg / 0.1 ml) but evolved without therapeutic response requiring the posterior vitrectomy (23G).
RESUMO Os autores relatam um caso de endoftalmite fúngica endógena bilateral ocorrida após nefrostomia descompressiva decorrente de pielonefrite obstrutiva secundária a nefrolitíase tratada, inicialmente, com injeção intravítrea de voriconazol (100 ìg/0.1 ml) porém evoluiu sem resposta terapêutica sendo necessária a vitrectomia posterior (23G).
OBJECTIVE: We refer to the effectiveness (known as pragmatic or real world) and efficacy (known as explanatory or desired or ideal world) of interventions. However, these terms seem to be randomly chosen by investigators who design clinical trials and do not always reflect the true purpose of the study. A pragmatic-explanatory continuum indicator summary tool was thus developed with the aim of identifying the characteristics of clinical trials that distinguish between effectiveness and efficacy issues. We verified whether clinical trials used the criteria proposed by the indicator summary tool, and we categorized these clinical trials according to a new classification. METHOD: A systematic survey of randomized clinical trials was performed. We added a score ranging from 0 (more efficacious) to 10 (more effective) to each domain of the indicator summary tool and proposed the following classifications: high efficacy (<25), moderate efficacy (25-50), moderate effectiveness (51-75), and high effectiveness (<75). RESULTS: A total of 844 randomized trials were analyzed. No analyzed trials used the criteria proposed by the indicator summary tool. Approximately 44% of the trials were classified as having moderate effectiveness, and 43.82% were classified as having moderate efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: Most clinical trials used the term “efficacy” to illustrate the application of results in clinical practice, but the majority of those were classified as having moderate effectiveness according to our proposed score. The classification based on the 0-100 score is still highly subjective and can be easily misunderstood in all domains based on each investigator’s own experiences and knowledge.