No abstract

PurposeAtropine at a low concentration is considered a safe and effective treatment to mitigate myopia progression. However, the potential unwanted side effects of administering atropine at a low dose on visual functions other than best corrected visual acuity has not been investigated. In this study, we investigate the short-term (12,16, and 20 h) and long-term (1, 2, and 4 weeks) effects of 0.01% atropine (i.e., 0.1 mg/ml) on contrast sensitivity (CS) in patients with myopia.MethodsThirty adults (23.33 ± 2.93 years old) with myopia between -1.00 and -6.00 diopters (D), astigmatism of -1.50 D or less, and anisometropia of 1.00 D or less, participated in this prospective, masked, placebo-controlled, randomized study. The participants were randomly assigned to receive 0.01% atropine or polyvinyl alcohol eye drops once nightly to both eyes for four weeks. CS was measured binocularly at baseline and 12, 16, 20 h, 1, 2, and 4 weeks after the first use of the eye drops.ResultsThere was no statistically significant differences of CS found between atropine and placebo-controlled groups in both short-term and long-term. There was no statistically significant interaction effect found between the time and group.ConclusionWe demonstrated no significant deleterious effect of 0.01% atropine on adult myopes’ CS.

PurposeTo investigate the severity and causes of gender imbalance in the counts of ophthalmology citations.MethodsThe PubMed database was searched to identify cited papers that were published in four journals (Prog Retin Eye Res, Ophthalmology, JAMA Ophthalmol, and Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci) between August 2015 and July 2020, and those that referenced these cited papers by 2021 July (i.e., citing papers). The gender category of a given paper is defined by the gender of the first and last author (MM, FM, MF, and FF; M means male and F means female). A generalized additive model to predict the expected proportion was fitted. The difference between the observed proportion and expected proportion of citations of a paper’s gender category was the primary outcome.ResultsThe proportion of female-led (MF and FF) papers slightly increased from 27% in 2015 to 30% in 2020. MM, FM, MF, and FF papers were cited as −9.3, −1.5, 13.0, and 23.9% more than expected, respectively. MM papers cited 13.9% more male-led (MM and FM) papers than female-led papers, and FF papers cited 33.5% fewer male-led papers than female-led papers. The difference between the observed proportion and expected proportion of MM citing papers within male-led and female-led cited papers grew at a rate of 0.13 and 0.67% per year.ConclusionThe high frequency of citations of female-led papers might narrow the gender gap in the citation count within ophthalmology. These findings show that papers by female-led are less common, so the gender gap might still exist even with their high citation count.