Tips4EyeDocs Daily News for 12/13/2011

PRACTICE MANAGEMENT

  1. Carter, B. (2011) “How To Get 41% More Likes On Your Facebook Posts” All Facebook web site. Available online at http://bit.ly/vnPcbF Posted on Twitter by @allfacebook:
  1. Quotation “@AlanSee: The longer the post, the less engaging fans find it. Retail brand wall posts of <80 characters rec 66% higher engagement… keep it simple” Spotted on Twitter
  2. Quotation “@KnowledgeBishop: Are your customers a “commodity” or a “community?” The answer determines your brand longevity. #custserv” Spotted on Twitter
  3. Babbit, M (2011) “RT @heatherhuhman: Defining You: A 3 Step Process in Personal Branding http://bit.ly/vcqod0 via @MBAHighway” and Posted on Twitter by @phyllismufson:

Research Bibliography

Clinical Significance: A lot of discussion surrounds whether an expert can determine progression. But can software do as well.

Tanna AP, Budenz DL, Bandi J, Feuer WJ, Feldman RM, Herndon LW, Rhee DJ, Vos JW, Huang J, Anderson DR. Glaucoma Progression Analysis Software Compared with Expert Consensus Opinion in the Detection of Visual Field Progression in Glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 2011 Nov 30; [Epub ahead of print]

Department of Ophthalmology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois.

PURPOSE: To compare the results of Glaucoma Progression Analysis (GPA, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Dublin, CA) to subjective expert consensus in the detection of glaucomatous visual field progression. DESIGN: Retrospective, observational case series. PARTICIPANTS: We included 100 eyes of 83 glaucoma patients. METHODS: Five serial Humphrey visual fields from 100 eyes of 83 glaucoma patients were evaluated by 5 masked glaucoma subspecialists for determination of progression. Four months later, with a randomly reordered patient sequence, the same visual field series were reevaluated by the same graders, at which time they had access to the Glaucoma Progression Analysis (GPA) printout. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The level of agreement between majority expert consensus and GPA, both before and after access to GPA data, was assessed using kappa statistics. RESULTS: On initial review and on reevaluation with access to the GPA printout, the level of agreement between majority expert consensus and GPA was fair (kappa = 0.52, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.35-0.69 and kappa = 0.62; 95% CI, 0.46-0.78, respectively). Expert consensus was more likely to classify a series of fields as showing progression than was GPA (P</=0.002). There was good agreement between expert consensus on initial review and reevaluation 4 months later (kappa = 0.77; 95% CI, 0.65-0.90). CONCLUSIONS: The level of agreement between majority expert consensus of subjective determination of visual field progression and GPA is fair. In cases of disagreement with GPA, the expert consensus classification was usually progression. Access to the results of GPA did not significantly change the level of agreement between expert consensus and the GPA result; however, expert consensus did change in 11 of 100 cases. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references. Copyright (c) 2011 American Academy of Ophthalmology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

PMID: 22137043 [PubMed – as supplied by publisher]

About Richard Hom OD, MPA

Dr. Hom holds Doctor of Optometry and Masters in Public Administration degrees and practices family eye care and consults on public policy, health information technology and program evaluation.
This entry was posted in Practice Management and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s