Tehran University Medical Journal

Background: Various prediction models have been developed aiming to estimate risk-adjusted mortality, morbidity and length of intensive care unit stay following cardiac surgeries. The European system for cardiac operative risk evaluation II (EuroSCORE II) is a prediction model which maps 18 predictors to a 30-day post-operative risk of death. The objective of this study was to evaluate the performance of the EuroSCORE II risk-analysis predictions among patients who underwent heart surgeries.
Methods: A prospective cross-sectional study was conducted to collect required variables for all consecutive patients underwent heart surgeries in Emam Reza hospital, Mashhad, Iran, from March 2014 to March 2015. Once the patient was hospitalized a cardiologist or a general physician evaluated pre- peri- and post-operative state to fill out the pre-designed structural paper form. Comparing the observed and expected mortality, the sensitivity, specificity, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and finally the discrimination power of the model for our patients were calculated and reported. The model value was calculated using the online tool.
Results: A total of 1337 patients (60% males) were included, the observed mortality rate was 3.2%. Although the overall performance was acceptable, the model showed poor discriminatory power (AUC=0.667, CI 95%: 0.648-0.685) and accuracy with sensitivity=61.88% and specificity=66.23%.
Conclusion: Our single-center study, based on consecutive patients who underwent cardiac surgery showed that EuroSCORE II demonstrated a moderate statistical overall performance with poor discrimination and calibration measures remain as concerning issues regarding 30-day post-operative mortality prediction after adult cardiac surgery. Poor performance measures for this system show the need for reformulating this risk stratification tool aiming to improve post cardiac surgery outcome predictions in Iran.

Background: Gender differences in scientometric indicators among medical faculty members in Iran was investigated.
Methods: The Research performance of the faculty at all universities and institutes of medical sciences in Iran was assessed using the Iranian Scientometric Information Database (ISID) on June 12, 2021. Selected variables in our study were name, gender, university, degree, academic rank, type of faculty, the total number of articles, the total number of citations, self-citation percentage, h-index, citation per article, international cooperation percentage, and the number of research collaborators. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used. The extracted data were analyzed using R v4.0.1 statistical software.
Results: A total of 21064 faculty members in 77 universities and institutes of medical sciences were registered in the ISID database, of which 12093 (57.4%) were men. Men faculty members outnumbered women in all academic ranks, except for the “instructor” rank (1134 female instructors against 835 male). In both sexes, most faculty members were assistant professors. There were more articles (346837 vs. 146024) and citations (5177060 vs. 1639246) by men than women. Among the 1789 faculty members with zero articles, 902 (50.4%) were men. One-hundred-and-fifty-four people were among ESI's top researchers' list, with a majority of men (124 people equal to 80.5%). The medians of all the scientometric indicators were higher in men than women. Men had a higher number of articles, the number of citations, h-index, citation per article, percentage of international articles, and co-authors, however, women had lower self-citations (1.56% vs. 2.51%). In all academic ranks, men had higher scientometric indicators. The only exception was the associate professors’ self-citation, in which women’s citations were higher than that of men (3.5 vs. 3.3). The highest mean h-index was in men with a Ph.D. in Pharmacy (13), men with a Ph.D. by Research (12) and women with a Ph.D. by Research (8.5), respectively.
Conclusion: Gender differences were evident in research performance in Iran. Women faculty members of medical sciences in Iran generally had lower scientometric indicators.

Background: This study investigates the use of color filters, which represent a scientific and standardized approach to assist individuals with visual impairment. Although there is no fixed protocol for prescribing color filters, these filters, which are often prescribed by ocular care providers in a trial-and-error manner today, help improve visual performance, control glare, and enhance motor skills in affected individuals. Given the absence of formal guidelines and standardized protocols in this area, this study tested common diseases leading to visual impairment against various color filters.
Methods: The study population consisted of patients visiting the Optometry Clinic of Labbafi Nejad Hospital. Participants were voluntarily referred from retinal and corneal departments to this clinic. This quasi-experimental study evaluated acuity at distance and near and contrast sensitivity function with and without color filters, and compared the results. After analysis, filter(s) suitable for each participant were identified and applied clinically, with one-month monitoring and re-evaluation.
Results: A total of 99 participants (54 male, 45 female) with a mean age of 32.19±15.41 years were included. The results showed that after using color filters, distance visual acuity (BCVA) improved significantly in most diseases (P<0.001). However, in albinism and diabetic retinopathy patients, there was no significant improvement in distance vision. At near distance, there was generally a significant improvement in near vision in most diseases after applying the filters (P=0.001). Exceptions included albinism and glaucoma, where no significant difference was observed (P=0.073). For contrast sensitivity (CSF), most patients showed improvement and increased contrast sensitivity (P<0.001), but this increase was not significant in albinism and glaucoma (P=0.483).
Conclusion: The study suggests that the use of certain color filters in visually impaired patients leads to significant improvements in both distance and near acuity and contrast sensitivity function, potentially enhancing quality of life. Based on the quantitative results, selecting the appropriate filter should be disease-specific and done with greater precision. However, the diversity and severity of diseases, the degree of vision loss, and genetic differences among individuals require greater attention to practical experiences and statements from this patient group. Additionally, patients with more than one ocular condition often changed the type and color of the filter.