Amniotic membrane preserved in glycerol/MEM showed a better tissue structure, with less detachment of the epithelium from the basal membrane, in comparison to undiluted dimethyl sulfoxide. The majority of the growth factors and cytokines were kept with both techniques of preservation.

Nature has always provided an unlimited source of biologically-active compounds. Since the beginning of mankind, humans have sought resources in fauna and flora to treat eye diseases. However, it was only after the Industrial Revolution that extracts of plants and substances of animal origin could be used safely, as has been determined by controlled interventional studies. Two major challenges faced by ocular pharmacology are the following: developing drugs that are able to reduce blindness due to glaucoma; and controlling the pain associated with eye surgery. The search for a drug that effectively lowers intraocular pressure and controls the progression of glaucoma has led to the development of various ocular hypotensive agents, such as physostigmine from the Physostigma venenosum plant. The anesthetic properties of cocaine, extracted from Erythroxylon coca, finally enabled surgical procedures in the eye. Several new natural compounds have been investigated in an attempt to identify substances with the potential to provide additional benefits to eye tissue and vision. Emerging evidence of anti-inflammatory, wound-healing, antimicrobial, antioxidant, antitumor, and antiangiogenic properties attributed to plant extracts and animal tissues has encouraged more investment in research in this area. Despite technological advances in synthesizing drugs, the pharmaceutical industry still seeks new active compounds from natural sources as well as from revisiting already-established naturally derived compounds. Although a large number of naturally-occurring compounds is known, this review article focuses on the bioactive substances with scientifically-proven benefits for ocular tissues.

No abstract

No abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the change in ocular motility and muscle thickness measured with ultrasonography after intramuscular injection of bupivacaine and botulinum toxin A. Methods: Eight patients (five female) were enrolled to measure ocular motility prior and 1, 7, 30 and 180 days after one injection of 2 ml of 1.5% bupivacaine and 2.5 U of botulinum toxin A in agonist and antagonist muscles, respectively, of eight amblyopic eyes. Muscle thickness was measured prior and on days 1, 7 and 30 after injection using 10MHz ultrasonography (eyelid technique). Results: Mean change in alignment was 10 prism diopters after 180 days (n=6). An average increase of 1.01 mm in muscle thickness was observed after 30 days of bupivacaine injection and 0.28 mm increase was observed after botulinum toxin A injection, as measured by ultrasonography. Lateral rectus muscles injected with bupivacaine had a mean increase of 1.5 mm in muscle thickness. Conclusion: In this study, a change in ocular motility was observed after 180 days of intramuscular injection of bupivacaine and botulinum toxin in horizontal extraocular muscles. Overall, there was an increase of muscle thickness in both botulinum toxinum A and bupivacaine injected muscles after 30 days of injection when measured by ultrasonography. This change was more pronounced on lateral rectus muscles after bupivacaine injection.

No abstract

In this issue of ABO (Arquivos Brasileiros de Oftalmologia) we formally acknowledge and express our gratitude to the voluntary hard and substantial work, commitment and proficiency of our peer reviewers. We could not thank them enough for their immense cooperation to our journal and, why not, visual sciences. That said, we could state that the essential impartiality and quality of scientific publishing is provided by peer reviewers (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7) .Peer review is defined as the "critical assessment of manuscripts submitted to journals by experts who are not part of the editorial staff" by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Journal's editors may not have accurate expertise to provide complete and impartial reviews of all themes considered for publication. Reviewers are chosen based on their knowledge about a subject or subspecialty. Peer review aims to improve science writing and editing, and medical publications deeply rely on its quality. They help editors to decide whether to publish a manuscript and provide critical feedback aiming to raise the quality of the manuscript's final version. Considering that a reviewer delay can potentially affect the career of younger colleagues, who are relying on a publication for promotion or tenure, reviewers work carries a "great power" and is associated to a huge responsibility (8,9) .Properly conducted peer review offers a great chance to learn from others experience and improve quality and safety of health care with the best available scientific discoveries and proper analysis. Reviewers check for inconsistencies, biases, wrong methodology and frauds. Incorrect reviews may lead to erroneous editorial decisions and good science might be rejected for bad reasons (even manuscripts that later resulted in a Nobel Prize have been rejected for publication) (9) . On the other hand, imprecise, misleading and partial data can be printed and negatively impact our patients. Clinical decisions are affected based in published results, having a direct impact on patient care (10,11) .There are no "formal training" programs for peer reviewers. Hence, although universally used, peer review is time-consuming, imperfect, largely subjective, present low reproducibility even under optimal research conditions and may fail to notice important deficiencies. Why does it happen? First of all, we have to state that medicine is very complex, and few (if any) outcome have a single sufficient and necessary cause. Besides that, many methodological biases (e.g.: sample selection, data extraction and analysis, statistical analysis, etc…) may affect decision making and lead to error. Also the competitiveness in research ("publish or perish") and limited grant funding opportunities may induce one to publish results from a single study into multiple (redundant) publications, plagiarize, fabricate or fraud scientific information (1,2,5,7) .Reviewers are more likely to accept to evaluate a manuscript when the paper represents an opportunity to learn something new, its data is relevan...

Dr. de Souza Lima Filho is the managing director of Ophtalmos S/A. Drs. de Souza Lima Filho, Irochima Pinheiro, and Oréfice have exclusive rights to intellectual property of this invention secured by a patent application filed with the Instituto Nacional da Propriedade Industrial.