RISK FOR EYE SPLASH INJURY DURING ADMINISTRATION OF INTRAOCULAR INJECTIONS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the use of eye protection and frequency of eye splash events during intraocular injections as well as infection risk awareness among retina specialists and fellows in training. METHODS: In a prospective survey of practicing retina specialists and retina fellows, frequency of use and type of eye protection employed during intraocular injections, frequency of eye splash occurrences, description of the eye splash event, number of procedures performed, and awareness of transconjunctival infection risk were investigated. RESULTS: Sixty-four ophthalmologists responded to the questionnaire: 40 retina fellows and 24 retina specialists. The response rate was 100%. Twenty-five percent of the fellows and 33.3% of the specialists reported using eye protection, including corrective glasses, during all intraocular injections. Two of the retina fellows and none of the specialists used special forms of eye protection. Retina fellows had a mean +/- SD of 2.1 +/- 1.3 years experience and the specialists had a mean +/- SD of 10.4 +/- 6.7 years experience in performing intraocular injections. The mean number of injections +/- SD performed by the fellows and specialists was 23 +/- 14.6 and 35 +/- 11.9 per month, respectively. Twelve conjunctival or corneal splash occurrences were reported by six fellows and two retina specialists. Eleven splash events occurred due to reflux of fluid during administration of subconjunctival anesthetic injection, and one event occurred during an anterior chamber tap. Splash events were significantly more likely to occur during procedures performed by fellows, with a relative risk of 8.4 for unprotected procedures (P< 0.001, Fisher exact test). Most (87.5%) of the participants were aware of the risk for transconjunctival viral infection. CONCLUSION: Special eye protection is seldom used during administration of intraocular injections. Although the risk for eye splash during administration of subconjunctival anesthetic before intraocular injections is relatively small, protective measures may be considered when treating high-risk patients.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".