BackgroundGlaucoma is the leading cause of irreversible visual impairment in the world affecting 60.5 million people worldwide in 2010, which is expected to increase to approximately 79.6 million by 2020. Therefore, glaucoma screening is important to detect, diagnose, and treat patients at the earlier stages to prevent disease progression and vision loss. Teleglaucoma uses stereoscopic digital imaging to take ocular images, which are transmitted electronically to an ocular specialist. The purpose is to synthesize literature to evaluate teleglaucoma, its diagnostic accuracy, healthcare system benefits, and cost-effectiveness.MethodsA systematic search was conducted to help locate published and unpublished studies. Studies which evaluate teleglaucoma as a screening device for glaucoma were included. A meta-analysis was conducted to provide estimates of diagnostic accuracy, diagnostic odds ratio, and the relative percentage of glaucoma cases detected. The improvements to healthcare service quality and cost data were assessed.ResultsOf 11237 studies reviewed, 45 were included. Our results indicated that, teleglaucoma is more specific and less sensitive than in-person examination. The pooled estimates of sensitivity was 0.832 [95% CI 0.770, 0.881] and specificity was 0.790 [95% CI 0.668, 0.876]. The relative odds of a positive screen test in glaucoma cases are 18.7 times more likely than a negative screen test in a non-glaucoma cases. Additionally, the mean cost for every case of glaucoma detected was $1098.67 US and of teleglaucoma per patient screened was $922.77 US.ConclusionTeleglaucoma can accurately discriminate between screen test results with greater odds for positive cases. It detects more cases of glaucoma than in-person examination. Both patients and the healthcare systems benefit from early detection, reduction in wait and travel times, increased specialist referral rates, and cost savings. Teleglaucoma is an effective screening tool for glaucoma specifically for remote and under-services communities.

BackgroundTuberculosis is one of the leading causes of death worldwide. Twenty-two high burden countries contributed to the majority of worldwide tuberculosis cases in 2015. Health care workers are at high risk of acquiring tuberculosis through occupational exposure.ObjectiveTo estimate the prevalence of latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) among health care workers in high burden countries.MethodsDatabases including MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), CINAHL (Ovid) and ISI Web of Science (Thompson-Reuters), and grey literature were searched for English language records on relevant medical subject headings (MeSH) terms of LTBI and health care providers. Literature was systematically reviewed using EPPI-Reviewer4 software. Prevalence and incidence of LTBI and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were reported. Pooled prevalence of LTBI and 95% CI were calculated using random-effects meta-analysis models and heterogeneity was assessed using I2 statistics. Sub-group analysis was conducted to assess the cause of heterogeneity.ResultsA total of 990 records were identified. Of those, 18 studies from only 7 high burden countries representing 10,078 subjects were included. Tuberculin skin test results were available for 9,545 participants. The pooled prevalence of LTBI was 47% (95% CI 34% to 60%, I2 = 99.6%). In subgroup analyses according to the country of the study, the pooled prevalence of LTBI was lowest in Brazil (37%) and highest in South Africa (64%). The pooled prevalence of LTBI among medical and nursing students was 26% (95% CI 6% to 46%, I2 = 99.3%) while the prevalence among all types of health care workers was 57% (95% CI 44% to 70%, I2 = 99.1%). Incidence of LTBI was available for health care workers in four countries. The cumulative incidence ranged from 2.8% in Brazilian medical students to 38% among all types of health care workers in South Africa.ConclusionThe findings of this study suggest that there is a high burden of LTBI among health care workers in high burden countries. Adequate infection control measures are warranted to prevent and control transmission in health care settings.

ObjectiveTo determine whether there still remains a significant advantage in the use of sutures to staples for orthopaedic skin closure in adult patients.DesignSystematic Review/ Meta-Analysis.Data sourcesMEDLINE-OVID, EMBASE-OVID, CINAHL and Cochrane Library. Grey and unpublished literature was also explored by searching: International Clinical Trial Registry, Grey Matters BIOSIS Previews, Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations, ClinicalTrials.gov, UK Clinical Trials Gateway, UK Clinical Research Network Study Portfolio, Open Grey, Grey Literature Report, and Web of Science.Selection criteriaArticles were from any country, written in English and published after 1950. We included all randomised control trials and observational studies comparing adults (≥18 years) undergoing orthopaedic surgery who either received staples or sutures for skin closure. The primary outcome was the incidence of surgical site infection. Secondary outcomes included closure time, inflammation, length of stay, pain, abscess formation, necrosis, discharge, wound dehiscence, allergic reaction and health-related quality of life.Results13 studies were included in our cumulative meta-analysis conducted using Review Manager V.5.0. The risk ratio was computed as a measure of the treatment effect taking into account heterogeneity. Random-effect models were applied. There was no significant difference in infection comparing sutures to staples. The cumulative relative risk was 1.06 (0.46 to 2.44). In addition, there was no difference in infection comparing sutures to staples in hip and knee surgery, respectively. Lastly, except for closure time, there was no significant difference in secondary outcomes comparing sutures to staples.ConclusionsExcept for closure time, there was no significant difference in superficial infection and secondary outcomes comparing sutures to staples was found. Given that there may in fact be no difference in effect between the two skin closure and the methodological limitations of included studies, authors should begin to consider the economic and logistic implications of using staples or sutures for skin closure.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42015017481.

Glaucoma is the leading cause of irreversible vision loss and costs the American economy $2.9 billion. Teleglaucoma remotely detects glaucoma improving access to ophthalmic care in rural areas. It helps manage glaucoma more efficiently to preserve vision and reduce healthcare costs. A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted using healthcare provider or third-party payer perspective within rural Canada. The study population were patients at-risk of glaucoma which includes those with diabetes and/or hypertension, family history of glaucoma, adults older than 50 years, and concurrent ocular conditions in rural Alberta. Markov modelling was used to model glaucoma health states. Effectiveness was measured in Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) and costs were used in Canadian dollars. Using TreeAge Pro 2009, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were developed in dollars per QALYs. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the factors affecting cost-effectiveness. Teleglaucoma had a 20% increase in ophthalmologist-referral rate; it reduced patient travel times by 61 hours and physician wait times by 30% in comparison to in-person examination (standard of care). Teleglaucoma costs $872 per patient screened which was 80% less than in-person examination. Teleglaucoma had a greater incremental effectiveness providing an additional 0.12 QALY per patient examination. It was more sensitive (86.5%) and less specific (78.6%) than in-person examination. Teleglaucoma was more cost-effective than in-person examination with an ICER of-$27,460/QALY. This indicated that teleglaucoma will save $27, 460 for each additional QALY gained. Long term benefits showed teleglaucoma prevents 24% cases of glaucoma blindness after 30 years. Teleglaucoma demonstrated improved health outcomes, as well as, cost benefits. It increases access to ophthalmic care and improves healthcare service efficiency, specifically in rural areas. Teleglaucoma is more cost-effective than current in-person examination and can improve the quality of life in glaucoma patients.