to investigate the epidemiology of eye-related emergency department (eD) visits and to determine if visual acuity (VA) could be an indicator for determining the timing for managing ocular emergencies, we have conducted the retrospective study which included patients visited the eD for eye-related reasons and had received ophthalmology consultations at a referral center in Taiwan in 2015. Among 46,514 consultations, 5,493 were ophthalmology consultations (11.8%). After exclusion, 5,422 were eligible for analysis. Among them, 1,165 (21.5%) had not likely emergent diagnoses, 4,048 (74.7%) had likely emergent diagnoses, and 209 patients (3.9%) could not be determined. The logMAR VA was 0.31 ± 0.48, 0.66 ± 0.78, and 1.00 ± 0.94 in groups with not likely emergent, likely emergent, and undetermined diagnoses, respectively. Among all eye-related ED visits, 10.3% of patients received ophthalmologic intervention or were admitted to the ophthalmology ward. A LogMAR VA score of 0.45 (decimal equivalent of 0.4) had the highest discrimination power for identifying whether a patient needed ophthalmology intervention or admission to ophthalmology ward (area under the curve: 0.802, sensitivity: 0.800, specificity: 0.672). In our study, we found VA could be an indicator for determining the priority and time of ocular emergencies requiring ophthalmic intervention in patients visiting the ED for eye-related reasons. People often visit the emergency department (ED) first for some ocular diseases. The most commonly reported eye condition in the ED is conjunctivitis followed by corneal injury, eye pain, and hordeolum 1. Although the ED can offer rapid management of ocular problems, an excessive number of nonemergent eye-related visits may overcrowd the ED, and limit the resources available for real emergent ophthalmic and other medical issues 2. A US study reported that approximately half of all ocular ED visits were not related to emergent conditions 3. Informing patients on how to appropriately seek eye care was suggested 4. The cost of ED visits in Taiwan is covered by Taiwan's National Health Insurance, making Taiwan health care renowned for its low cost and overloaded services 5. The average treatment-associated expenditure and drug-associated expenditure for a single ED visit are NT$1,155

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID 19) pandemic has presented major challenges to ophthalmologists. Reports have shown that ocular manifestations can be the first presenting symptoms of COVID 19 infection and conjunctiva may be a portal of entry for the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) associated coronavirus 2 (SARS CoV 2). The purpose of this article is to provide general guidance for ophthalmologists to understand the prevalence of ocular presentation in COVID 19 patients and to reduce the risk of transmission during practice. Relevant studies published in the period of November 1, 2019, and July 15, 2020, regarding ocular manifestations of COVID 19 and detection of SARS CoV 2 in the eye were included in this systematic review and meta analysis. The pooled prevalence of the ocular manifestations has been estimated at 7% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.03–0.10) among COVID 19 patients. The pooled detection rate of SARS CoV 2 from conjunctiva was low (1%, 95% CI: 0.00–0.03). Conjunctival symptoms were the most common ocular manifestations in COVID 19, but the positive detection rate of the SARS CoV 2 virus by reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction of conjunctival tears or secretions remained low. No study has shown a definite transmission of COVID 19 through ocular mucosa or secretions. In summary, ocular manifestations in COVID 19 patients commonly comprise ocular surface symptoms. Although a low prevalence of ocular symptoms was encountered among patients infected by SARS CoV 2, it is imperative for all ophthalmologists to understand the full spectrum of COVID 19 symptoms or signs including those of the eyes as well as to adopt appropriate protective measures during clinical practice.

This study aimed to compare the clinical performance between a smartphone-based fundus photography device and a contact imaging device for retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) screening. All patients were first examined with binocular indirect ophthalmoscopy (BIO), which served as the reference standard. The patients were then assessed by two devices. Imaging quality, ability to judge the zone and stage of ROP, agreement with the BIO results, vital signs, and pain scores were compared between these two devices. In total, 142 eyes of 71 infants were included. For the smartphone-based fundus photography, image quality was graded excellent or acceptable in 91.4% of examinations, although it was still significantly inferior to that of the contact imaging device (p < 0.001). The smartphone-based fundus photography images had moderate agreement with the BIO results regarding the presence or absence of plus disease (Cohen’s κ = 0.619), but evaluating the zone (p < 0.001) and stage (p < 0.001) of ROP was difficult. Systemic parameters, except for heart rate, were similar between the two imaging devices (all p > 0.05). In conclusion, although the smartphone-based fundus photography showed moderate agreement for determining the presence or absence of plus disease, it failed to identify the zone and stage of ROP.