Do we really know the prevalence of accomodative and nonstrabismic binocular dysfunctions?

Purpose: To determine the scientific evidence about the prevalence of accommodative and nonstrabismic binocular anomalies. Methods: We carried out a systematic review of studies published between 1986 and 2009, analysing the MEDLINE, CINAHL, FRANCIS and PsycINFO databases. We considered admitting those papers related to prevalence in paediatric and adult populations. We identified 660 articles and 10 papers met the inclusion criteria. Results: There is a wide range of prevalence, particularly for accommodative insufficiency (2 %-61.7 %) and convergence insufficiency (2.25 %-33 %). More studies are available for children (7) compared with adults (3). Most of studies examine clinical population (5 studies) with 3 assessed at schools and 1 at University with samples that vary from 65 to 2048 patients. There is great variability regarding the number of diagnostic signs ranging from 1 to 5 clinical signs. We found a relation between the number of clinical signs used and prevalence values for convergence insufficiency although this relationship cannot be confirmed for other conditions. Conclusion: There is a lack of proper epidemiological studies about the prevalence of accommodative and nonstrabismic binocular anomalies. Studies reviewed examine consecutive or selected patients in clinical settings and schools but in any case they are randomized and representative of their populations with no data for general population. The wide discrepancies in prevalence figures are due to both sample population and the lack of uniformity in diagnostic criteria so that it makes difficult to compile results. Biases and limitations of reports determine that prevalence rates offered are only estimations from selected populations.

Is there any evidence for the validity of diagnostic criteria used for accommodative and nonstrabismic binocular dysfunctions?

Purpose: To analyze the diagnostic criteria used in the scientific literature published in the past 25 years for accommodative and nonstrabismic binocular dysfunctions and to explore if the epidemiological analysis of diagnostic validity has been used to propose which clinical criteria should be used for diagnostic purposes. Methods: We carried out a systematic review of papers on accommodative and non-strabic binocular disorders published from 1986 to 2012 analysing the MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and FRANCIS databases. We admitted original articles about diagnosis of these anomalies in any population. We identified 839 articles and 12 studies were included. The quality of included articles was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. Results: The review shows a wide range of clinical signs and cut-off points between authors. Only 3 studies (regarding accommodative anomalies) assessed diagnostic accuracy of clinical signs. Their results suggest using the accommodative amplitude and monocular accommodative facility for diagnosing accommodative insufficiency and a high positive relative accommodation for accommodative excess. The remaining 9 articles did not analyze diagnostic accuracy, assessing a diagnosis with the criteria the authors considered. We also found differences between studies in the way of considering patients’ symptomatology. 3 studies of 12 analyzed, performed a validation of a symptom survey used for convergence insufficiency. Conclusions: Scientific literature reveals differences between authors according to diagnostic criteria for accommodative and nonstrabismic binocular dysfunctions. Diagnostic accuracy studies show that there is only certain evidence for accommodative conditions. For binocular anomalies there is only evidence about a validated questionnaire for convergence insufficiency with no data of diagnostic accuracy.

How to make a natural language interface to query databases accessible to everyone: An example

Natural Language Interfaces to Query Databases (NLIDBs) have been an active research field since the 1960s. However, they have not been widely adopted. This article explores some of the biggest challenges and approaches for building NLIDBs and proposes techniques to reduce implementation and adoption costs. The article describes {AskMe*}, a new system that leverages some of these approaches and adds an innovative feature: query-authoring services, which lower the entry barrier for end users. Advantages of these approaches are proven with experimentation. Results confirm that, even when {AskMe*} is automatically reconfigurable against multiple domains, its accuracy is comparable to domain-specific NLIDBs.

Condiciones de trabajo y salud de los trabajadores inmigrantes en España. Revisión bibliográfica

Fundamentos: La relación entre inmigración, trabajo y salud constituye uno de los retos más importantes en salud laboral y más concretamente en España por el importante incremento de proporción inmigrante acontecido en el mercado laboral. El objetivo de esta investigación es conocer la relación entre las condiciones de trabajo y sus efectos en la salud de trabajadores inmigrantes en España. Métodos: Revisión bibliográfica de artículos científicos originales en español e inglés Medline y Medes (1998-2012). Se revisaron los textos completos de los artículos incluidos. Resultados: Se incluyeron 20 estudios, 13 con metodología de investigación cuantitativa y 7 cualitativa. Los temas tratados abordaban problemas específicos de salud relacionados con el trabajo (principalmente lesiones por accidente de trabajo), incapacidad laboral y diferencias en condiciones de trabajo y empleo. Los hallazgos de los estudios mostraron mayor incidencia de lesiones por accidentes de trabajo, menores tasas de incapacidad laboral, mayor prevalencia de presentismo laboral, exposición a factores psicosociales y precariedad laboral en la población inmigrante. Conclusiones: A pesar de la singularidad del proceso demográfico migratorio, los problemas de salud y determinantes identificados no difieren de los referenciados en otros países, en otros contextos y en otros momentos.