MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2981756552 · doi:10.2196/15218

Dermatologists’ Adherence to the Latest Recommendations for Screening of Hydroxychloroquine Retinopathy in Saudi Arabia: Cross-Sectional Study

2019· article· en· W2981756552 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nouf Talal Mleeh, Nujood Alzahrani, Jehad Hariri, Hatan Mortada, Mohammed R. Algethami

Bibliographic record

VenueInteractive Journal of Medical Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDrug-Induced Ocular Toxicity
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHydroxychloroquineCross-sectional studyFamily medicineAlternative medicineDermatologyInternal medicineCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)DiseasePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has been used to manage many inflammatory skin conditions. Nevertheless, retinopathy continues to be its most significant adverse effect. The American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO) recommends baseline ophthalmologic screening in the first year of HCQ treatment. However, a recent study found an inadequate awareness of the recommendations. Furthermore, limited data are available regarding the implementation of the recommendations among dermatologists. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess dermatologists' adherence to recommendations pertaining to their current practice regarding HCQ toxicity detection. METHODS: A self-administrated questionnaire was distributed between February 2 and May 4, 2018, among members of the Saudi Society of Dermatology. The questionnaire comprised demographic-related questions and questions pertaining to each physician's routine practice about the follow-up of HCQ-treated patients. RESULTS: A total of 76 dermatologists completed the questionnaire. We achieved a response rate of 62.54%. More than half (43/76, 56%) of the dermatologists were male. Furthermore, more than half (41/76, 53%) of them reported treating 1 to 3 patients with HCQ during the last year. Furthermore, two-thirds (47/76, 61%) of them reported screening patients before initiating HCQ treatment. Regarding follow-up recommendations, 59% (45/76) of dermatologists reported yearly after starting treatment for no-risk patients, whereas 94% (72/76) reported "yearly within 5 years of treatment" for at-risk patients. Data were considered significant at P<.05. All analyses were performed using SPSS, version 20 (IBM). CONCLUSIONS: Dermatologists in Saudi Arabia are not well informed about some aspects of the latest recommendations regarding screening for HCQ toxicity in terms of tests, follow-up timing, cessation of the drug, and causative agents. Therefore, we recommend conducting more studies in Saudi Arabia to determine the adherence of more physicians to the AAO recommendations. Furthermore, patient education regarding HCQ toxicity and increased patient awareness are recommended for effective and safe HCQ use.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.158
GPT teacher head0.508
Teacher spread0.350 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInteractive Journal of Medical ResearchSame topicDrug-Induced Ocular ToxicityFrench-language works237,207