Investigative ophthalmology & visual science
-
Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. · May 2014
ReviewRetaining clinician-scientists: nature versus nurture.
In their IOVS article "Rejuvenating Clinician-Scientist Training" (published March 28, 2014), Balamurali Ambati and Judd Cahoon rightly point out the dearth of new clinician-scientists in ophthalmology. Within the context of their suggestions for increasing the number of successful clinician-scientists, they claim that the traditional MD-PhD training programs and K awards have failed to produce individuals who will carry on the important work of clinically relevant research that will improve patients' lives and sight. In this response we present data, including information on the career paths of graduates of the Washington University ophthalmology residency, that call into question the presumed failure of MD-PhD and K award programs and show that, in fact, graduates of these programs are more likely to succeed as clinician-scientists than are their peers who have not trained in such scientifically rigorous environments. ⋯ We agree with Ambati and Cahoon that there needs to be more innovation in the way training programs are structured, but we believe that the evidence supports supplementing the current model rather than scrapping it and starting over with unproven initiatives. The data on training programs supports the contention that those who have already made substantial investment and commitment to the clinician-scientist pathway through participation in MSTP or K training programs are the most likely to succeed on this career trajectory. To muffle the siren song of private practice and retain those best prepared for the clinician-scientist pathway requires additional investment as their careers mature through protected research time, mentorship, and advocacy.
-
Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. · Apr 2014
Review Meta AnalysisAssociation between aspirin use and age-related macular degeneration: a meta-analysis.
We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies to evaluate the association between aspirin use and age-related macular degeneration (AMD). ⋯ The pooled effects from current literature suggest that aspirin use is not associated with AMD, but it increased the risk of the neovascular form of AMD.
-
Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. · Nov 2007
Review Comparative StudyOptical coherence tomography versus stereoscopic fundus photography or biomicroscopy for diagnosing diabetic macular edema: a systematic review.
To review systematically the sensitivity and specificity of optical coherence tomography (OCT) for diagnosing macular edema attributable to diabetic retinopathy compared with well-established gold standard tests such as fundus stereophotography or contact and noncontact fundus biomicroscopy. ⋯ OCT performs well compared with fundus stereophotography or biomicroscopy to diagnose diabetic macular edema. The quality of reporting of such studies should be improved, and authors should present cross tabulations of index and reference test results. Data adjusted for within-subject correlation should also be provided, although this issue represents a challenge for systematic reviewers.
-
Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. · Nov 2007
Review Comparative StudyOptical coherence tomography versus stereoscopic fundus photography or biomicroscopy for diagnosing diabetic macular edema: a systematic review.
To review systematically the sensitivity and specificity of optical coherence tomography (OCT) for diagnosing macular edema attributable to diabetic retinopathy compared with well-established gold standard tests such as fundus stereophotography or contact and noncontact fundus biomicroscopy. ⋯ OCT performs well compared with fundus stereophotography or biomicroscopy to diagnose diabetic macular edema. The quality of reporting of such studies should be improved, and authors should present cross tabulations of index and reference test results. Data adjusted for within-subject correlation should also be provided, although this issue represents a challenge for systematic reviewers.