CONFLICT OF INTEREST: NONE DECLAREDEvidence based medicine (EBM) is the conscientious, explicit, judicious and reasonable use of modern, best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients. EBM integrates clinical experience and patient values with the best available research information. It is a movement which aims to increase the use of high quality clinical research in clinical decision making. EBM requires new skills of the clinician, including efficient literature-searching, and the application of formal rules of evidence in evaluating the clinical literature. The practice of evidence-based medicine is a process of lifelong, self-directed, problem-based learning in which caring for one’s own patients creates the need for clinically important information about diagnosis, prognosis, therapy and other clinical and health care issues. It is not “cookbook” with recipes, but its good application brings cost-effective and better health care. The key difference between evidence-based medicine and traditional medicine is not that EBM considers the evidence while the latter does not. Both take evidence into account; however, EBM demands better evidence than has traditionally been used. One of the greatest achievements of evidence-based medicine has been the development of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, methods by which researchers identify multiple studies on a topic, separate the best ones and then critically analyze them to come up with a summary of the best available evidence. The EBM-oriented clinicians of tomorrow have three tasks: a) to use evidence summaries in clinical practice; b) to help develop and update selected systematic reviews or evidence-based guidelines in their area of expertise; and c) to enrol patients in studies of treatment, diagnosis and prognosis on which medical practice is based.

AimTo determine relation between near work and myopia progression in student population. Causes of myopia occurrence are not sufficiently explained.MethodsThis retrospective-prospective, descriptive research included 100 students with verified myopia up to -3 Dsph. Ophthalmological examination and measurement diopter-hours variable (Dh) were done twice, in the period from January 2011 until January 2012.ResultsA multivariate regression analysis of impact on the difference of distance visual acuity without correction to the right and left eye and difference of automatic computer refractometry in cycloplegia of both eyes indicates that, diopter-hours variable (Dh) had statistically significant impact on increase of distance visual acuity difference (right eye OR: I measurement–Dh 1.489, II measurement–Dh 1.544, p<0.05; left eye OR: I measurement–Dh 1.602, II measurement–Dh 1.538, p<0.05) and automatic computer refractometry in cycloplegia (right eye OR: I measurement 1.361, II measurement 1.493, p<0.05; left eye OR: I measurement 0.931, II measurement 1.019, p<0.05) during both measurements.ConclusionNear work cause the increase of myopia. This research opened a perspective for other researches on the impact of near work on myopia.

No abstract

SummaryIntroduction: XXII European Congress of Medical Informatics (MIe 2009) took place in Sarajevo from August 30th to September 2nd 2009. Assessment of quality of papers presented at MIe 2009 was a process of observation, measurement, comparison and evaluation of the quality of orally presented papers. Methodology: For this study, and for the first time since EFMI founding (1976) and MIE congresses, the authors introduced a specially created quality assessment form with five relevant paper quality variables (methodological approach, international influence, scientific content, language quality, technical features) which the first author of this article used in peer-review process of papers submitted for publication in the journal Acta Informatica Medica (as Editor-in-Chief for last 18 years). The survey was conducted on the principle of random sampling of participants of MIE 2009 Conference in Sarajevo, where specially trained interviewers (final year students of medicine and engineering at the University of Sarajevo) interviewed 33 session’s chairs and 110 participants/listeners of MIE 2009 paper presentations in 33 sessions (of total 40). Data was collected, entered into a specially created database, analyzed and presented. Results: From the total of 150 oral presentations at the MIE 2009, 110 oral presentations were graded by both chairs and participants/ listeners. Grading results were compared and we found that in 60% of cases (66 papers) session chairs gave higher ratings than other participants of the congress. The highest rating was 10, and the lowest 3. Only 3 of the papers received all four grades 10 from the session chairs. The most common grade given by chairs of the session was 8 (26.36%), followed by 7 (20%), 9 (19.32%), 6 (13.18%), 10 and 5 (7.50%), 4 (5%) and 3 (1.14%). Significant differences in quality assessment of papers done by chairs and those done by other participants/listeners are observed. Conclusion: This work should demonstrate the importance of introducing universal (uniform) scale for assessment of articles at conferences that would provide objective and relevant assessment, which has not been the practice. Results obtained using a single standardized scale can be compared to each other and thus improve the quality of the articles and the congress. Future congresses can be organized in this manner and become leading events in certain fields of medical science.