Iris Melanoma: Genetic Pathway, Staging, Histopathology, Clinical Features, Diagnostic Imaging, Treatment and Management

Abstract

Introduction- Iris melanomas mainly grow in the anterior chamber or along the iris surface, and by local extension; they commonly invade the anterior chamber angle and anterior ciliary body. Iris melanomas account for 2–3% of all uveal melanomas, with the diffuse variety accounting for about 10% of all iris melanomas. Methodology-A systematic review is a technical tool that basically describes a more or less systematic way of collecting and synthesizing past research by integrating findings and perspectives from a variety of empirical findings. In this study, authors conducted a systematic assessment of 51 research articles on the subject of "Iris Melanoma" in order to examine and compare the various approaches and outcomes. This comprehensive review summarizes all 51 research articles in the most accessible manner to discuss the Genetic pathway, Staging, Histopathology, Clinical features, Diagnostic Imaging, Treatment, and Management. Results-Iris melanomas are discovered early and treated fast because they are apparent when they are little. As a result, patients with this tumor had a better prognosis than those with posterior uvea tumors. Conclusion- Radiotherapy or surgical resection are usually used in this situation. A combination of radiotherapy and surgery may be employed in some circumstances. Conservative treatment is an excellent option for enucleation since it provides for effective tumor control locally. Keywords:melanoma, Diagnosis, Management, Stages, Eye-care.

To Evaluate the Effectiveness of Structured Teaching Programme on Knowledge and Attitude Regarding Dyslexia among Selected Primary School Teachers in Aurangabad City

“…Samples were 110 educators who were selected by convenience sampling technique. The statistical analysis revealed that of the research work has exposed that awareness level concerning learning disability between instructors was had 39 (35.5%) below normal awareness, 32 (29.1%) had average, 30 (27.3%) had good along with a little portion of teachers had 9 (8.2%) excellent knowledge [14]. ▪ The present investigation findings are in conformity with the findings of a research work to evaluate the understanding and knowledge of Dyslexia between Elementary institute educators in India.…”

“…Educators enquired their conformity with every declaration arraying as of 'strongly agree' to 'strongly disagree'. Item reactions was organizing enquiries so that a positive attitude is reflected by an 'agree' replies for 12 (1,4,5,6,8,10,11,14,15,17,18,19) as well as a 'disagree' answer for the lasting 8 things (2,3,7, 9,12,13,16,20). This range revealed that high score designated a more positive attitude headed for dyslexic students, whereas a low keep count specified a more negative attitude on the way to dyslexic students.…”

“…In regard with any committee regularly discussing about dyslexia, there were 130 (52%) teachers in the schools where have no committee regularly discussing about dyslexia and 120(48%) teachers in the schools where committee regularly discussing about dyslexia, and whereas 77(64%) had special educators and 43(36%) had mobile trainers to regularly discussing about dyslexia. In the pre-test, the majority of 150(60%) of the primary school teachers had poor knowledge (score 0-10), 70(28%) of them had average knowledge (score [11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] and 30(12%) of them had good knowledge (score 21-30) regarding dyslexia. In consider with pre-test, 220(88%) of the primary school teachers had a negative attitude (score 20-50) and 30(12%) of them had a positive attitude (Score 51-80) towards dyslexia.…”

“…In concern with knowledge pre-test, 150(60%) of the primary school teachers had poor knowledge (score 0-10), 70(28%) of them had average knowledge (score [11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] and 30(12%) of them had good knowledge (score 21-30) regarding dyslexia, whereas. in the post-test, 30(12%) of the primary school teachers had poor knowledge (score 0-10), 80(32%) of them had average knowledge (score [11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] and 140(56%) of them had good knowledge (score 21-30) regarding dyslexia. This indicates that the knowledge among primary school teachers regarding dyslexia improved remarkably after the structured teaching programme.…”