We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
In This Issue of JAMA Ophthalmology |

Highlights FREE

JAMA Ophthalmol. 2015;133(5):501. doi:10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2014.3717.
Text Size: A A A
Published online


To compare telemedicine with traditional eye examinations in their ability to provide diabetic retinopathy screening examinations, Mansberger and coauthors randomized and followed up to 5 years 567 participants with diabetes. They assigned participants to telemedicine with a nonmydriatic camera in a primary care medical clinic (n = 296) or traditional surveillance with an eye care professional (n = 271). The telemedicine group was more likely to receive a diabetic retinopathy screening examination when compared with the traditional surveillance group during the 6-month or less and greater than 6-month through 18-month time bins. The authors conclude that primary care clinics can use telemedicine to screen for diabetic retinopathy and monitor for disease worsening over a long period.

In this retrospective case-series study of children attending Give Kids Sight Day (GKSD) in 2012 at a low-socioeconomic urban setting, Dotan et al describe the demographic characteristics and ophthalmic conditions of the children. Provision of free glasses and failure of previous vision screening were the most common reasons families elected to attend GKSD (64% and 49%, respectively), including 10% of attendees who needed continuous ophthalmic care, most commonly for amblyopia. With the assistance of a social worker, 59% of children requiring continuous treatment returned to the clinic, compared with 2% in prior years before social worker intervention, suggesting that social worker intervention is useful in overcoming common barriers to follow-up care.

Kaplan and coauthors assess the cost-effectiveness of trabeculectomy with mitomycin vs tube insertion vs maximal medical treatment. Using a Markov cohort model with a 5-year time horizon to study a hypothetical cohort of 100 000 patients who required glaucoma surgery, they found that the mean costs for medical treatment, trabeculectomy, and tube insertion were $6172, $7872, and $10 075, respectively, resulting in a cost difference of $1700 (95% CI, $1644-$1770) for medical treatment vs trabeculectomy, $3904 (95% CI, $3858-$3953) for medical treatment vs tube insertion, and $2203 (95% CI, $2121-$2261) for trabeculectomy vs tube insertion. The authors conclude that trabeculectomy and tube insertion are cost-effective compared with medical treatment alone, although trabeculectomy is cost-effective at a substantially lower cost per quality-adjusted life-year compared with tube insertion.

Bressler and colleagues for the Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network assessed the risk of sustained intraocular pressure (IOP) elevation or the need for IOP-lowering treatments for eyes with diabetic macular edema following repeated intravitreous injections of ranibizumab. The cumulative probability of sustained IOP elevation or of initiation or augmentation of ocular hypotensive therapy by 3 years, after repeated ranibizumab injections, was 9.5% for the participants who received ranibizumab plus prompt or deferred focal/grid laser treatment vs 3.4% for the participants who received a sham injection plus focal/grid laser treatment (difference, 6.1% [99% CI, −0.2% to 12.3%]; hazard ratio, 2.9 [99% CI 1.0-7.9]; P = .01). The authors conclude that, in eyes with center-involved diabetic macular edema and no prior open-angle glaucoma, repeated intravitreous injections of ranibizumab may increase the risk of sustained IOP elevation or the need for ocular hypotensive treatment.





Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.


Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

0 Citations

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.