David Tamblyn

Effect of a blue-light-blocking intraocular lens on the quality of sleep

PURPOSE: To evaluate whether implantation of a blue‐light‐blocking intraocular lens (IOL) affects sleep quality. SETTING: Repatriation General Hospital, Adelaide, Australia. METHODS: This study comprised patients who had bilateral cataract surgery during the preceding 12 months with implantation of a conventional SI40NB IOL or an AcrySof Natural SN60WF blue‐light‐blocking IOL. Patients were contacted by telephone at least 6 months after second‐eye surgery, and the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) questionnaire was administered. Results were compared between groups. RESULTS: Of the 49 patients, 31 received conventional IOLs and 18, blue‐light‐blocking IOLs. The mean age of the patients was 80 years ± 8.1 (SD). The median PSQI score was 6 (interquartile range 3 to 8). There were no statistically significant differences in PSQI scores between the 2 IOL groups (P = .65). This remained true after adjustment for sex, age, medication, and time since surgery. CONCLUSION: The blue‐light‐blocking IOL had no effect on the sleep quality of patients, indicating that these IOLs might serve as an alternative to conventional IOLs without a detrimental effect on circadian rhythm.

Comparative analysis of three risk assessment tools in Australian patients with prostate cancer

Whats known on the subject? and What does the study add?

WHAT’S IN A NAME? DEVELOPING DEFINITIONS FOR COMMON HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT PRODUCT TYPES OF THE INTERNATIONAL NETWORK OF AGENCIES FOR HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT (INAHTA)

OBJECTIVES A mapping exercise was undertaken to determine how HTA is being described and conducted across the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA), with the aim of harmonizing terminologies and approaches. METHODS Three progressive surveys were undertaken. In 2010, INAHTA agencies were asked to provide details on all of their HTA products. In 2013, additional information was sought on key methodological characteristics of five of the most common HTA product types. Subsequently, final agreement was sought on three proposed product types. RESULTS Forty-five HTA agencies responded to at least one of the surveys. In 2010, twenty-one agencies reported publishing over seventy named HTA products. Core domains associated with full HTA reports were reported by a third of agencies but were labeled differently, so products were classified according to product type (n = 17). Agencies producing short, tailored products increased between 2010 and 2013, with the publication of rapid reviews doubling from 33 percent to 66 percent. In 2013, half of the agencies adapted their common HTA products from documents produced by other agencies. A consensus (>70 percent) was achieved on definitions for HTA reports, mini-HTAs, and rapid reviews. CONCLUSIONS The product label for an HTA is not always indicative of its content. Terminology has, therefore, been agreed to make explicit the trade-off between rigor and timeliness in three common HTA product types. An INAHTA Product Type (IPT) Mark has been created to identify each of these. It is hoped this will further facilitate HTA adaptation between agencies and reduce duplication of effort.

Clinical and socio‐demographic profile of an Australian multi‐institutional prostate cancer cohort

Aims:  To describe the clinical and socio‐demographic data from a South Australian prostate cancer cohort (PCCOD).

Erratum: Stromal androgen receptor regulates the composition of the microenvironment to influence prostate cancer outcome [Oncotarget. 2015; 6:16135-16150]

Erratum: Stromal androgen receptor regulates the composition of the microenvironment to influence prostate cancer outcome Damien A. Leach, Eleanor F. Need, Roxanne Toivanen, Andrew P. Trotta, Helen M. Palethorpe, David J. Tamblyn, Tina Kopsaftis, Georgina M. England, Eric Smith, Paul A. Drew, Carole B. Pinnock, Peng Lee, Jeff Holst, Gail P. Risbridger, Samarth Chopra, Donald B. DeFranco, Renea A. Taylor and Grant Buchanan Oncotarget. 2015; 6:16135-16150 PMID: 25965833