Assessing the Quality of Published Surveys in Ophthalmology

A survey of surveys: an evaluation of the quality of published surveys in neurosurgery

PURPOSE

Surveys generate valuable data in epidemiologic and qualitative clinical research. The quality of a survey depends on its design, the number of responses it receives, and the reporting of the results. In this study, we aimed to assess the quality of surveys in neurosurgery.

METHODS

Neurosurgical surveys published between 2000 and 2020 (inclusive) were identified from PubMed. Various datapoints regarding the surveys were collated. The number of citations received by the papers was determined from Google Scholar. A 6-dimensional quality assessment tool was applied to the surveys. Parameters from this tool were combined with the number of responses received to create the survey quality score (SQS).

RESULTS

A total of 618 surveys were included for analysis. The target sample size correlated with the number of responses received. The response rate correlated positively with the target sample size and the number of reminders sent and negatively with the number of questions in the survey. The median number of authors on neurosurgery survey papers was 6. The number of authors correlated with the SQS and the number of citations received by published survey papers. The median normalized SQS for neurosurgical surveys was 65%. The nSQS independently predicted the citations received per year by surveys.

CONCLUSIONS

The modifiable factors that correlated with improvements in survey design were optimizing the number of questions, maximizing the target sample size, and incorporating reminders in the survey design. Increasing the number of contributing authors led to improvements in survey quality. The SQS was validated and correlated well with the citations received by surveys.

Evaluation of quality and utility of YouTube vitreoretinal surgical videos

Background

We evaluated the utility and quality of surgical videos posted on the main retinal YouTube channels by surgeons at different career stages and assessed how well the steps of the vitrectomy videos conformed to the parameters in the Casey Eye Institute Vitrectomy Indices Tool for Skills assessment (CEIVITS) scale.

Methods

Forty-five videos were included from nine retinal YouTube channels posted from 2011 to 2021. For each surgeon, 10 videos were randomized and the utility, quality, and educational content were assessed. For each video, the surgeons also assessed how the validated CEIVITS items were presented in the videos. The surgeons were divided based on years of experience: fellows (0–3 years), young surgeons (4–10 years), and senior surgeons (more than 10 years).

Results

The video image quality was rated as good in 63.52% of evaluations, moderate in 30.37%, and poor in 6.11%. The quality assessment of the videos among the groups did not differ. The fellows rated the use of the videos as educational tools higher (3.99) than the young (3.87) and senior surgeons (3.47) (p  < 0.0002, Kruskal–Wallis test); 34.76% of the fellows reported learning something new from the videos compared with 19.17% of the senior surgeons (p  < 0.05). The CEIVITS scale item that was seen more frequently was related to core vitrectomies (72.29%) and the least represented was about checking infusion lines (80.17%).

Conclusions

Vitreoretinal surgical videos are useful educational tools during all stages of surgeons’ careers, and the evaluation of the quality of the images did not differ significantly among the groups, however, surgeons with expertise shorter than 10 years report significantly greater use of videos than experienced surgeons. Videos posted to the public domain on different social media, most often YouTube, are widespread and unregulated for providing complimentary surgical education. Retinal societies should formulate guidelines and improve the educational value of the surgical videos posted on the Internet.

Trial Registration The Federal University of São Paulo institution’s Research Ethics Committee reviewed and approved this study protocol (Approval Number, 4.726.589).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40942-022-00360-w.

Transforming ophthalmic education into virtual learning during COVID-19 pandemic: a global perspective

OBJECTIVE

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has imposed measures of social distancing and barriers in delivery of "in person" education. Institutions, involved in training the next generation of ophthalmologists, are using alternative teaching methods to maintain the standard of education.

METHODS

We conducted a worldwide survey among physicians, who are actively involved in Ophthalmology-related education, between 3 and 14 April 2020. The expert survey, developed on the basis of literature search and focus group discussions, comprised 23 questions addressing the use of e-learning in Ophthalmology during the COVID-19 pandemic.

RESULTS

A total of 321 participants from both academic and non-academic institutions worldwide, with variable practice experience and expertise, completed the survey. Before the pandemic, the majority of participants used traditional training modalities, including lectures, grand rounds and journal clubs, and 48% did not use any e-learning. There was a statistically significant increase in the use of all e-learning alternatives during the pandemic (p < 0.001), associated mainly with the availability of e-learning facilities (p < 0.001) and the academic character of institutions (p < 0.001). Zoom® was recognized as the mostly used platform for virtual teaching. Although theoretical teaching may take place, the surgical training of residents/fellows was dramatically reduced. The latter was significantly associated with participants' perspectives about teaching practices (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

COVID-19 pandemic imposed great challenges in the educational field of Ophthalmology. The experience related to virtual training in Ophthalmology, gained during the pandemic, may change the traditional teaching practices in the world and provide new educational opportunities.

Preventive Practices of Ophthalmologists During COVID-19 Pandemic

PURPOSE

To explore ophthalmologists' preventive practices, and their perceived seriousness and perceived risk of transmission of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

METHODS

In a cross-sectional study, a semi-structured questionnaire was distributed online among ophthalmologists. Questions about COVID-19 infection, perceived seriousness, perceived risk of transmission, and recommended COVID-19 preventive practices were asked. Based on the adoption of a preventive measure and its frequency, a maximum preventive score of 25 was computed.

RESULTS

Among 126 respondents, the mean±SD age was 45.3±10.9 years, and 57.9% worked in a tertiary care hospital. Regarding preventive practices, 96.8% of ophthalmologists wore face masks, 89.6% avoided talking during the slit lamp examination, and 72.2% wore gloves during the ophthalmic examination. Availability of plastic barriers and regular disinfection of slit lamps were reported by 78.6% and 43.7% of ophthalmologists, respectively. The mean preventive score increased with increasing age (p=0.001), and was higher for males (18.96±4.60) compared to females (17.81±4.96). The mean score for perceived severity was higher (p<0.0001) among ophthalmologists with more than 10 years of experience (8.76±1.58) than those with experience of 10 years or less (7.49±1.86). Out of 29 ophthalmologists who had been tested for COVID-19, 11 were found to be positive, giving an overall incidence of COVID-19 infection of 8.7%.

CONCLUSION

The ophthalmologists were generally compliant with recommended preventive measures. Some preventive measures, such as the wearing of gloves and regular disinfection of slit lamps, need improvement. We recommend creating awareness of and monitoring for COVID-19 infection control measures in healthcare settings.