Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Chang et al.1 share data gathered from an online survey sent to approximately 4000 members of the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery (ASCRS) to understand the effect of the European Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgeons' (ESCRS) multicenter, randomized, controlled trial on surgeon practices with respect to antibiotic prophylaxis for cataract surgery. They received 1312 completed surveys for a response rate of approximately 33%. The survey results indicate that a minority of the respondents (30%) used intracameral antibiotics as an intracameral injection or via irrigating solution. The report also states that the ESCRS study “did not have an impact on the practice of 77% of respondents,” who said they were still not using intracameral antibiotics. We have 2 concerns about the survey results in this report. First, the timing of the survey may have been premature with respect to the complete published results of the ESCRS study. Although preliminary results announcing the discontinuation of the ESCRS study due to ethical concerns were published in March 2006,2 the full study was not published until June 2007.3 The survey to ASCRS members was sent via email in January 2007, months before the completed study was available for review by survey respondents. Even if the completed study results had been published before the survey, it is reasonable to expect a delay between the published results and a major change in the practice behavior of individual surgeons. Second, the survey collected data on each surgeon's annual cataract volume. Table 2 reveals that 362 of the 1312 respondents (27.6%) had an annual case load of over 5001; yet, the report does not share the relative practice behavior of surgeons stratified by the number of cases performed. Since endophthalmitis is a relatively rare disease, one might expect that high-volume surgeons would be most attuned to the best practices of antibiotic prophylaxis. Even before the published results of the ESCRS trial, many high-volume surgeons in the United States and Canada were vocal proponents of intracameral antibiotics, at the risk of significant public criticism (Chang DF. Vancomycin mixture. Available at: www.changcataract.com/pdf/docstools.pdf. Accessed January 12, 2008).4,5 If a large percentage of high-volume cataract surgeons were already using intracameral antibiotics, the ESCRS study results would not change the behavior of this group of surgeons, who are the most likely to be sensitive to new information about best practices. The complete impact of the ESCRS study on surgeon practice may not yet be realized. Perhaps many who were skeptical of the exhortations of our high-volume surgeon colleagues will slowly be persuaded by the best available evidence on this topic: a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».