DESIGN: Survey study.
METHODS: We utilized an anonymous online survey, which was previously validated and conducted in Europe, through Young Ophthalmologist leaders from the national member societies of the Asia-Pacific Academy of Ophthalmology (APAO) from September 2019 to July 2021. Responses were based on a 5-point Likert scale (where applicable) and data were analyzed using Microsoft Excel. Our main outcome measures were differences between regions, that is, Southeast Asia (SEA) and Western Pacific (WP); and seniority, that is, trainees/junior ophthalmologists and senior ophthalmologists.
RESULTS: We collated 130 responses representing 20 regions in the APAC region. The year of completion of ophthalmic training ranged from 1999 to 2024. The mean duration of training was 3.7±1.0 years. Most (98/130, 75%) indicated an interest for a common training standard across the APAC. Comparing SEA and WP trainees, both regions had similar working environments, but those in SEA reported significantly lower remuneration than their counterparts in WP ($600 vs $3000, P <0.05). WP trainees performed more phacoemulsification surgeries (76 WP vs 19 SEA), while SEA trainees conducted more manual small incision cataract surgeries (157 WP vs 1.5 SEA per duration of training). Senior ophthalmologists performed more cataract surgeries (210.9 senior ophthalmologists vs 40.1 junior ophthalmologists). Trainees had less confidence in medical competency areas such as interpreting an electroretinogram/visual evoked potential/electrooculogram (SEA=1.8, WP=2.1) and conducting an angiography (SEA=2.8, WP=3.4).
CONCLUSIONS: Our study highlighted heterogeneity among ophthalmology training experiences in the APAC region, with the majority indicating an interest in a common training standard.
METHODS: A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases, and abstract databases of the Asia-Pacific Vitreo-retina Society, European Society of Retina Specialists, American Academy of Ophthalmology, and Controversies in Ophthalmology: Asia-Australia congresses, was conducted to assess evidence for T&E regimens in nAMD. Only studies with ≥100 study eyes were included. An expert panel reviewed the results and key factors potentially influencing the use of T&E regimens in nAMD and PCV, and subsequently formed consensus recommendations for their application in the Asia-Pacific region.
RESULTS: Twenty-seven studies were included. Studies demonstrated that T&E regimens with aflibercept, ranibizumab, or bevacizumab in nAMD, and with aflibercept in PCV, were efficacious and safe. The recommendation for T&E is, after ≥3 consecutive monthly loading doses, treatment intervals can be extended by 2 to 4 weeks up to 12 to 16 weeks. When disease activity recurs, the recommendation is to reinject and shorten intervals by 2 to 4 weeks until fluid resolution, after which treatment intervals can again be extended. Intraretinal fluid should be treated until resolved; however, persistent minimal subretinal fluid after consecutive treatments may be tolerated with treatment intervals maintained or extended if the clinical condition is stable.
CONCLUSIONS: T&E regimens are efficacious and safe for nAMD and PCV, can reduce the number of visits, and minimize the overall burden for clinicians and patients.
METHODS: This was a multi-national survey of ophthalmologists between March 1st, 2020 to February 29th, 2021 disseminated via the major global ophthalmology societies. The survey was designed based on microsystem, mesosystem and macrosystem questions, and the software as a medical device (SaMD) regulatory framework chaired by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Factors associated with AI adoption for ophthalmology analyzed with multivariable logistic regression random forest machine learning.
RESULTS: One thousand one hundred seventy-six ophthalmologists from 70 countries participated with a response rate ranging from 78.8 to 85.8% per question. Ophthalmologists were more willing to use AI as clinical assistive tools (88.1%, n = 890/1,010) especially those with over 20 years' experience (OR 3.70, 95% CI: 1.10-12.5, p = 0.035), as compared to clinical decision support tools (78.8%, n = 796/1,010) or diagnostic tools (64.5%, n = 651). A majority of Ophthalmologists felt that AI is most relevant to DR (78.2%), followed by glaucoma (70.7%), AMD (66.8%), and cataract (51.4%) detection. Many participants were confident their roles will not be replaced (68.2%, n = 632/927), and felt COVID-19 catalyzed willingness to adopt AI (80.9%, n = 750/927). Common barriers to implementation include medical liability from errors (72.5%, n = 672/927) whereas enablers include improving access (94.5%, n = 876/927). Machine learning modeling predicted acceptance from participant demographics with moderate to high accuracy, and area under the receiver operating curves of 0.63-0.83.
CONCLUSION: Ophthalmologists are receptive to adopting AI as assistive tools for DR, glaucoma, and AMD. Furthermore, ML is a useful method that can be applied to evaluate predictive factors on clinical qualitative questionnaires. This study outlines actionable insights for future research and facilitation interventions to drive adoption and operationalization of AI tools for Ophthalmology.