Purpose To compare objective and subjective metrics from regular and high resolution Scheimpflug devices (Pentacam, Oculus, Inc.) to determine their equivalence and interchangeability for refractive surgery screening. Setting Emory Vision at Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA Design Retrospective comparative case series. Methods One hundred eyes from 50 consecutive screened refractive surgery patients evaluated with both high resolution (HR) and regular (REG) devices were evaluated. Objective parameters evaluated included keratometry (K), central corneal thickness (CCT), and device-generated keratoconus screening indices (KI). Evaluations by masked expert reviewers subjectively graded images as normal, suspicious, or abnormal. Results Keratometry values were not significantly different (Anterior K (HR) 1.21 ± 1.13 vs. (REG) 1.15 ± 1.16, P = 0.73, Posterior K (HR) 0.34 ± 0.23 vs. (REG) 0.35 ± 0.23, P = 0.67). CCT was significantly thinner in the HR group (514.7 ± 26.6 vs. 527.6 ± 27.6, p<0.0001) with limits of agreement of −12.9 to +17.5 microns. Most KI were more suspicious for HR than REG except index of height asymmetry (IHA) and index of height deviation (IHD). Subjectively, 60% of cases received the same score, HR was more suspicious in 30%, and REG was more suspicious in 12% of cases, with only slight subjective agreement (kappa = 0.26 to 0.31) between technologies. Conclusions Regular and high resolution Scheimpflug imaging devices generated different objective values and significantly different subjective interpretations with poor inter-reviewer agreement. The high resolution device provided a more conservative overall output. For refractive surgical screening the two devices are not interchangeable.
Background There is a concern that firearm injuries are very common reported at lady Reading hospital Peshawar MTI, but the there are no contemporary studies. Gunshot wound are persistent burden on community as well as on hospitals Aim: To evaluate trends of firearm injuries reporting to LRH their anatomical distributions and their outcomes. Methods: This prospective randomized study (a pilot project for public health alert) was conducted in Accident & Emergency Department of Lady Reading hospital MTI, Peshawar KPK, from 1st May, 2020 to 1st October, 2020. Hundred patients with firearm injuries to different region shot were included in this study. Data collected on predesigned proforma and entries in HMIS used after stabilizing the patient. A prospective pilot study done over a period of six months from 1st May, 2020 to 1st October, 2020 in trauma section of Accident Emergency department of Lady Reading hospital MTI Peshawar. Results: Patients of all age groups with firearm injuries were included in this study from May 2020 to October 2020. Data was collected on predesigned proforma as well as HMIS (health management information system) of ED department. A total of 100 patients presented to LRH with firearm injuries during six months. Males outnumbered female by 6:1 accounting for 100(85%) of injured. : Domestic violence was found to be the most common reason for the firearm use 44(44%), Don’t know or refuse to share was 29(29%), rivalry 12(12%), land and property conflict 9(9%), street fight 3(3%) accidental gunshots 2%, (n=25) and robbery 1.1% (n=1).The most common firearm used for inflicting injury was pistol (70%), shot gun (2.2%), curiously 16% were either reluctant or were never knowing about the weapon Conclusion: Firearm injuries are common public health problem globally, in our set up situation is more grievous and less highlighted, the most common cause being domestic violence, lack of education, easy availability of arms, illegal or legal weapon ownership making situation worst in the form of premature deaths and disability. Understanding the nature of problem can prevent this violence Keywords: Firearms, violence, gunshot wounds, homicides, suicides
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.