Suchergebnisse

The comprehensive European Board of Ophthalmology Diploma (EBOD) examination is one of 38 European medical specialty examinations. This review aims at disclosing the specific procedures and content of the EBOD examination. It is a descriptive study summarizing the present organization of the EBOD examination. It is the 3rd largest European postgraduate medical assessment after anaesthesiology and cardiology. The master language is English for the Part 1 written test (knowledge test with 52 modified type X multiple-choice questions) (in the past the written test was also available in French and German). Ophthalmology training of minimum 4 years in a full or associated European Union of Medical Specialists (UEMS) member state is a prerequisite. Problem-solving skills are tested in the Part 2 oral assessment, which is a viva of 4 subjects conducted in English with support for native language whenever feasible. The comprehensive EBOD examination is one of the leading examinations organized by UEMS European Boards or Specialist Sections from the point of number of examinees, item banking, and item contents.

TOPIC: To estimate the prevalence of nonrefractive visual impairment and blindness in European persons 55 years of age and older. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Few visual impairment and blindness prevalence estimates are available for the European population. In addition, many of the data collected in European population-based studies currently are unpublished and have not been included in previous estimates. METHODS: Fourteen European population-based studies participating in the European Eye Epidemiology Consortium (n = 70 723) were included. Each study provided nonrefractive visual impairment and blindness prevalence estimates stratified by age (10-year strata) and gender. Nonrefractive visual impairment and blindness were defined as best-corrected visual acuity worse than 20/60 and 20/400 in the better eye, respectively. Using random effects meta-analysis, prevalence rates were estimated according to age, gender, geographical area, and period (1991-2006 and 2007-2012). Because no data were available for Central and Eastern Europe, population projections for numbers of affected people were estimated using Eurostat population estimates for European high-income countries in 2000 and 2010. RESULTS: The age-standardized prevalence of nonrefractive visual impairment in people 55 years of age or older decreased from 2.22% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.34-3.10) from 1991 through 2006 to 0.92% (95% CI, 0.42-1.42) from 2007 through 2012. It strongly increased with age in both periods (up to 15.69% and 4.39% in participants 85 years of age or older from 1991 through 2006 and from 2007 through 2012, respectively). Age-standardized prevalence of visual impairment tended to be higher in women than men from 1991 through 2006 (2.67% vs. 1.88%), but not from 2007 through 2012 (0.87% vs. 0.88%). No differences were observed between northern, western, and southern regions of Europe. The projected numbers of affected older inhabitants in European high-income countries decreased from 2.5 million affected individuals in 2000 to 1.2 million in 2010. Of those, 584 000 were blind in 2000, in comparison with 170 000 who were blind in 2010. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the increase in the European older population, our study indicated that the number of visually impaired people has decreased in European high-income countries in the last 20 years. This may be the result of major improvements in eye care and prevention, the decreasing prevalence of eye diseases, or both.

Raised intraocular pressure (IOP) is the most important risk factor for developing glaucoma, the second commonest cause of blindness globally. Understanding associations with IOP and variations in IOP between countries may teach us about mechanisms underlying glaucoma. We examined cross-sectional associations with IOP in 43,500 European adults from 12 cohort studies belonging to the European Eye Epidemiology (E3) consortium. Each study conducted multivariable linear regression with IOP as the outcome variable and results were pooled using random effects meta-analysis. The association of standardized study IOP with latitude was tested using meta-regression. Higher IOP was observed in men (0.18 mmHg; 95 % CI 0.06, 0.31; P = 0.004) and with higher body mass index (0.21 mmHg per 5 kg/m2; 95 % CI 0.14, 0.28; P < 0.001), shorter height (-0.17 mmHg per 10 cm; 95 % CI -0.25, -0.08; P < 0.001), higher systolic blood pressure (0.17 mmHg per 10 mmHg; 95 % CI 0.12, 0.22; P < 0.001) and more myopic refraction (0.06 mmHg per Dioptre; 95 % CI 0.03, 0.09; P < 0.001). An inverted U-shaped trend was observed between age and IOP, with IOP increasing up to the age of 60 and decreasing in participants older than 70 years. We found no significant association between standardized IOP and study location latitude (P = 0.76). Novel findings of our study include the association of lower IOP in taller people and an inverted-U shaped association of IOP with age. We found no evidence of significant variation in IOP across Europe. Despite the limited range of latitude amongst included studies, this finding is in favour of collaborative pooling of data from studies examining environmental and genetic determinants of IOP in Europeans. ; Medical Research Council (G1000143), Cancer Research UK (C864/A14136), Research into Ageing (262), Wellcome Trust, Richard Desmond Charitable Trust (via Fight for Sight), National Institute for Health Research, Stichting Lijf en Leven, Krimpen aan de Lek, MD Fonds, Utrecht, Rotterdamse Vereniging Blindenbelangen, Rotterdam, Stichting Oogfonds Nederland, Utrecht, Blindenpenning, Amsterdam, Blindenhulp, The Hague, Algemene Nederlandse Vereniging ter Voorkoming van Blindheid (ANVVB), Doorn, Landelijke Stichting voor Blinden en Slechtzienden, Utrecht, Swart van Essen, Rotterdam, Stichting Winckel-Sweep, Utrecht, Henkes Stichting, Rotterdam, Lameris Ootech BV, Nieuwegein, Medical Workshop, de Meern, NWO (Graduate Programme 2010 BOO (022.002.023)), Laboratoires Thea (Clermont-Ferrand, France), inter regional grant (PHRC) and the regional Council of Burgundy, European Community's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013), Rheinland-Pfalz AZ 961-386261/733), Johannes Gutenberg-University of Mainz, Boehringer Ingelheim, PHILIPS Medical Systems, Novartis Pharma, Novartis European Union (European Social Fund—ESF), Greek National Strategic Reference Framework (NSRF) (Research Funding Program: THALES), European Social Fund ; This is the final version of the article. It first appeared from Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10654-016-0191-1

PURPOSE: To investigate whether myopia is becoming more common across Europe and explore whether increasing education levels, an important environmental risk factor for myopia, might explain any temporal trend. DESIGN: Meta-analysis of population-based, cross-sectional studies from the European Eye Epidemiology (E(3)) Consortium. PARTICIPANTS: The E(3) Consortium is a collaborative network of epidemiological studies of common eye diseases in adults across Europe. Refractive data were available for 61 946 participants from 15 population-based studies performed between 1990 and 2013; participants had a range of median ages from 44 to 78 years. METHODS: Noncycloplegic refraction, year of birth, and highest educational level achieved were obtained for all participants. Myopia was defined as a mean spherical equivalent ≤-0.75 diopters. A random-effects meta-analysis of age-specific myopia prevalence was performed, with sequential analyses stratified by year of birth and highest level of educational attainment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Variation in age-specific myopia prevalence for differing years of birth and educational level. RESULTS: There was a significant cohort effect for increasing myopia prevalence across more recent birth decades; age-standardized myopia prevalence increased from 17.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 17.6-18.1) to 23.5% (95% CI, 23.2-23.7) in those born between 1910 and 1939 compared with 1940 and 1979 (P = 0.03). Education was significantly associated with myopia; for those completing primary, secondary, and higher education, the age-standardized prevalences were 25.4% (CI, 25.0-25.8), 29.1% (CI, 28.8-29.5), and 36.6% (CI, 36.1-37.2), respectively. Although more recent birth cohorts were more educated, this did not fully explain the cohort effect. Compared with the reference risk of participants born in the 1920s with only primary education, higher education or being born in the 1960s doubled the myopia prevalence ratio-2.43 (CI, 1.26-4.17) and 2.62 (CI, 1.31-5.00), respectively-whereas individuals born in the 1960s and completing higher education had approximately 4 times the reference risk: a prevalence ratio of 3.76 (CI, 2.21-6.57). CONCLUSIONS: Myopia is becoming more common in Europe; although education levels have increased and are associated with myopia, higher education seems to be an additive rather than explanatory factor. Increasing levels of myopia carry significant clinical and economic implications, with more people at risk of the sight-threatening complications associated with high myopia.