Differences in SARS-CoV-2 recommendations from major ophthalmology societies worldwide
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Since the WHO declared the COVID-19 outbreak as a public health emergency, medical societies around the world published COVID-19 recommendations to physicians to ensure patient care and physician safety. During this pandemic, ophthalmologists around the world adapted their clinical and surgical practice following such guidelines. This original research examines all publicly available COVID-19 recommendations from twelve major ophthalmology societies around the world. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Twelve ophthalmology societies recognised by the International Council of Ophthalmology were included in this study. One society per each WHO region was included: the society selected was the one who had the highest number of national COVID-19 confirmed cases on 11 May 2020. In addition to these countries, the major ophthalmology society in each G7 country was included. RESULTS: Ten out of 12 major international ophthalmology societies from countries covering all six WHO regions have given recommendations regarding urgent patient care, social distancing, telemedicine and personal protective equipment when caring for ophthalmic patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. While all guidelines emphasise the importance of postponing non-urgent care and taking necessary safety measures, specific recommendations differ between countries. CONCLUSIONS: As there is no clear consensus on ophthalmology guidelines across countries, this paper highlights the differences in international ophthalmic care recommendations during the COVID-19 pandemic. Knowledge of the differences in ophthalmic management plans will allow ophthalmologists and all eye care providers to consider the variety of international approaches and apply best practices following evidence-based recommendations during pandemics.
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 | 0.030 | 0.116 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".