A Systematic Review Regarding Tonometry and the Transmission of Infectious Diseases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tonometry has been identified as a common method for measuring the intraocular pressure in patients. The direct contact between the tonometer and the eye may contribute to the risk of cross infection, especially of viral particles, from one patient to another. A systematic review was undertaken to address the likelihood of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), hepatitis B virus, hepatitis C virus, and prion diseases transmission through the use of tonometers. Additionally, a comparison of the current tonometer disinfection methods is provided to assist with identifying which technique effectively reduces the risk of disease transmission. An electronic literature search was conducted using the following databases: Web of Science, EMBASE, CINAHL, SCOPUS, Biosis Previews, Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Google Scholar. Dissertation indexes were also searched, and these included: Dissertations and Abstracts, and Dissertations and Abstracts - UK/Ireland. Additionally, the Clinicaltrials.gov trial registry was searched to identify any other relevant literature. Two independent reviewers critically appraised the articles retrieved through the literature search. In total, 11 unique studies were deemed relevant for this systematic review. The available evidence demonstrated that the use of tonometers contributes to the transmission of these infectious diseases in vitro . The results also demonstrated variability in determining the most effective tonometer sterilization technique against these infectious diseases in vitro . There was limited evidence available regarding the transmission of HIV, hepatitis B, hepatitis C, and prion diseases through the use of tonometers. Additionally, due to the variability regarding the most effective sterilization techniques, it is difficult to identify which sterilization technique is most effective or adequately effective against these infectious diseases. Future research studies regarding infectious disease transmission through tonometry and sterilization techniques should be completed to more adequately inform infectious disease control guidelines. J Clin Med Res. 2018;10(3):159-165 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/jocmr3294w
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 | 0.012 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".