American Board Of Ophthalmology Research Articles

Contributions and Legacies of Selected Black Pioneers in Ophthalmology and Institutional Milestones

PurposeEstablishing a record of key contributions of early Black ophthalmologists can help illuminate future generations. We aimed to identify major physician pioneers in Ophthalmology, delineate their contributions, and place their ascendance in an historical context to understand the institutional and cultural barriers they overcame to achieve success. MethodsPubmed and other databases were searched, along with death notices and archeological records, using "Black," "African American," "eye surgeon," "Negro," "Journal of the National Medical Association" and other search terms. Librarians from the Library of Congress, National Institutes of Health, and key ophthalmology-training institutions were consulted, as were the American Academy of Ophthalmology and American Board of Ophthalmology. Family members and colleagues of selected deceased pioneers were interviewed. ResultsMany early pioneers emerged from historically black institutions, as Black students and practitioners were then typically excluded elsewhere. Mentorship is a key theme that emerged in the careers of many pioneers and the Black ophthalmologists they trained. ConclusionsBlack ophthalmologists have contributed tremendously to eye-care practice, education, and innovation. Efforts to recruit and train Black ophthalmologists should include highlighting the roles of Black pioneers, increasing educational and training access for underrepresented in medicine at the institutional level, and expanding pathway and mentorship programs.

The Diagnostic Accuracy of First-Year Ophthalmology Residents on Call: Considerations for Postgraduate Year 2 (PGY-2) Standardizations of Call Structure.

Background Ophthalmology is a unique specialty with limited exposure during medical school. To improve the transition to ophthalmology residency, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) announced in 2017 that all ophthalmology residency programs would move to a combined post-graduate year (PGY) 1 year with mandatory integration by 2023.Currently, there are no standardized guidelines from the American Board of Ophthalmology (ABO) or the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) to address ophthalmology resident competence prior to becoming the primary contact for inpatient and emergency room (ER) consultations as a PGY-2. Novice residents may not be equipped to accurately diagnose vision or life-threatening ocular conditions. A balance between resident autonomy and supervision is required for proper training without increasing patient morbidity and mortality. Objective This study's objective is to examine the diagnostic accuracy of PGY-2 ophthalmology non-integrated residents on call to standardize supervision requirements (through buddy-call) prior to initiating indirectly supervised calls. Methods All inpatient and ER ophthalmology consults for the first seven weeks of the year evaluated by PGY-2 (junior) residents were supervised and graded as "correct" or "incorrect" by PGY-4 (senior) residents. Results One hundred forty-eight consults were seen over 30 call days over a period of seven weeks (4.93 consults per call). The percentage of correct diagnoses increased with each successive week (R2= 0.9581; correlation = 0.979). The greatest percent increase of correctly diagnosed encounters was between weeks 2 and 3 (19.14%) correlating to call numbers 10-16and 45-68 patient encounters. The mean percent accuracy surpassed 70% during weeks 3-4, and improvement continued to week 7. High-acuity diagnoses were identified consistently 100% of the time from week 5 onward. Conclusion Our analysis indicated that diagnostic accuracy was greater than 70% between weeks 3 and 4 with high-acuity diagnostic accuracy reaching 100% at week 5. It can be postulated that optimal direct senior resident supervision is needed for at least 3-5 weeks before transitioning to indirectly supervised calls by PGY-2 residents. This standardization would allow junior residents to acquire sufficient clinical experience to accurately make a diagnosis and prevent patient morbidity. Further research nationally is necessary prior to creating a standardized call structure for PGY-2 residents especially with the newly mandatory integrated ophthalmology residency programs.

Primary Practice Emphasis Area and Diversity Among Board-Certified Ophthalmologists

To describe the ophthalmology primary practice emphasis area by underrepresented in medicine (URiM) status using the American Board of Ophthalmology (ABO) Diplomates database. Retrospective cohort study. The study was based on a retrospective review of the ABO database from 1992 to 2020. The datapoints recorded included age at time of graduation and at time of certification, sex/gender, self-reported race/ethnicity, year of graduation and of certification, region of practice in the United States, and the self-reported primary practice emphasis area within ophthalmology. The URiM cohort included self-identified Black, Hispanic/Latinx, American Indian and Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander individuals. Statistical analysis was conducted using Pearson χ2, Student t, and Fisher exact tests. A total of 575 (10.1%) ophthalmologists self-identified as URiM, vs 5132 (89.9%) as non-URiM. Diplomates who were URiM were more likely to be female and to be older at the time of ABO certification than those who were not URiM (P < .001). Over time, there was a steady decrease in the percentage of diplomates who were URiM (P < .001). There was a statistically significantly higher percentage of URiM ophthalmologists who reported glaucoma as their primary area of emphasis (P = .039) and non-URiM ophthalmologists who reported oncology, pathology, international, or genetics (P = .015), but no significant differences in the remaining subspecialties (P ≥ .123). There were modest differences in reported ophthalmology primary practice emphasis areas between URiM and non-URiM ABO diplomates. Despite efforts to increase diversity in ophthalmology, the percentage of graduating URiM ABO diplomates has decreased over the past 2 decades.

American Board of Ophthalmology Certifying Examination Performance and Opioid Prescription Patterns

ABSTRACT: Purpose: To compare opioid prescription patterns of ophthalmologists based on performance on the American Board of Ophthalmology (ABO) written qualifying examination (WQE) and oral certifying examinations (OE). Design: All ophthalmologists within the Medicare Prescriber Part D Database from 2013 – 2018 who attempted the ABO, WQE, or OE were included. Opioid prescription data were analyzed based on ABO certification status: certified on first attempt, failed but then certified, and never certified. Results: There were 6822 ophthalmologists with 32258 records in the Medicare database during the study period with ABO data available. The point estimate for total opioid prescriptions per year was 7.3, standard error (SE) 0.3 for ophthalmologists who were certified on the first attempt (reference). The estimate for those who failed one or both qualifying examinations, but then became board certified (BC) was −1.7, SE 0.6 (p = 0.0031); and the estimate for those ophthalmologists who never became BC was +0.8, SE 1.5 (p = 0.5318). The point estimate for cost of opioids prescribed per year was $55.17, SE 4.4 for ophthalmologists who were certified on the first attempt, with the estimate for those who failed one or both qualifying examinations, but then became BC being $−12.29, SE 8.7 (p = 0.1581); and for those ophthalmologists who never became BC being +$69.54, SE 21.7 (p = 0.0014). Conclusions: Diplomates who initially failed one or both qualifying exams, but who ultimately became certified, prescribed less opioids, less costly opioids, and less supply of opioids within the Medicare Part D database compared to non-BC ophthalmologists.

Race and Gender Shift among Academic Glaucoma Specialists in the Last 5 Decades.

To evaluate the demographic composition of academic glaucoma specialists currently practicing in the United States. Retrospective and observational study. Academic glaucoma specialists identified from ophthalmology residency programs listed on the Doximity database. The American Board of Ophthalmology (ABO) membership directory, Doximity database, publicly available data, and direct communications were used to identify academic glaucoma specialists and their demographics. Information collected included-name, gender, race/ethnicity, geographic location, board certification date, academic affiliation, and academic rank. Ophthalmic age was defined as the number of years since ophthalmology board certification. Underrepresented minority (URM) groups were defined as Hispanics, Black or African Americans, Latinos, American Indians, or Alaskan Natives as defined by San Francisco match. In addition, the temporal, geographic, and academic rank distributions among females and URMs were explored. Women and URMs representations among academic glaucoma specialists across academic ranks, geographic regions, as well as ophthalmic age. There were 457 active academic glaucoma specialists identified from 110 institutions in 38 states. Among them, 185 (40.5%) were women and 42 (9.2%) were URM. The proportion of women glaucoma specialists in academia had increased significantly with a rate of 1.049 in odds ratio (OR) per year (p < 0.001). However, there were no significant changes in the proportion of URMs over time. The earliest year of certification was 1,964 for males and 1,974 for females. When controlled for ophthalmic age, there were no significant differences in the distribution of women or URMs between the different academic ranks (p = 0.572 and p = 0.762, respectively). Among assistant professors, women had a significantly higher ophthalmic age compared to men (p < 0.001), but there was no significant difference in ophthalmic age in both the associate and full professor groups. There were no significant differences in the geographic distribution of gender (p = 0.516) and URM across United States regions (p = 0.238). The proportion of women among academic glaucoma specialists has significantly increased over the past 5 decades; however, the proportion of URMs has been stagnant in the same period. Enhancing URM representation among academic glaucoma specialists deserves to be a future priority. Afzali K, Fujimoto DK, Mohammadi SO, et al. Race and Gender Shift among Academic Glaucoma Specialists in the Last 5 Decades. J Curr Glaucoma Pract 2023;17(2):98-103.

Gender Distribution and Trends of Ophthalmology Subspecialties, 1992-2020

To describe the gender trends in ophthalmology primary practice areas using the American Board of Ophthalmology (ABO) diplomates. A trend study plus a cross-sectional study of the ABO's database. The de-identified records of all (N=12,844) ABO-certified ophthalmologists between 1992 and 2020 were obtained. The year of certification, gender, and self-reported primary practice for each ophthalmologist was recorded. Subspecialty was defined as the self-reported primary practice emphasis. Practice trends of the entire population and the subpopulation of subspecialists were explored based on gender and were then visualized using tables and graphs and analyzed using the χ2 or Fisher exact test. A total of 12,844 board-certified ophthalmologists were included. Nearly half (47%) reported a subspecialty as their primary practice area (n=6042), of whom the majority were male (65%, n=3940). In the first decade, men outnumbered women reporting subspecialty practices by more than 2:1. Over time, the number of women subspecialists increased whereas the number of men remained stable, such that by 2020 women comprised almost half of new ABO diplomates reporting subspecialty practice. When all subspecialists were compared within gender, there was not a significant difference (P=.15) between the percentage of male (46%) and female (48%) ophthalmologist reporting a subspecialty practice. However, a significantly greater proportion of women than men reported primary practice in pediatrics (20.1% vs 7.9%, P < .001) and glaucoma (21.8% vs 16.0%, P < .0001). Alternatively, a significantly greater proportion of men reported primary practice in vitreoretinal surgery (47.2% vs 22.0%, P < .0001). There was no significant difference between the proportion of men and women reporting cornea (P=.15) or oculoplastics (P=.31). The number of women in ophthalmology subspecialty practice has increased steadily over the past 30 years. Men and women subspecialize at the same rate, but significant differences exist between the types of ophthalmology practiced by each gender.

Gender Representation Among Presenters in Ophthalmology Subspecialties in 2019: A Retrospective Review

To describe gender representation at 8 national ophthalmology conferences, stratified by role, session category, and subspecialty. Retrospective cross-sectional study. Data were examined on 3817 presenters at the 2019 American Academy of Ophthalmology subspecialty days, American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery, American Glaucoma Society, American Society of Retina Specialists, American Society of Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus, North American Neuro-OphthalmologySociety, and American Uveitis Society meetings. The main outcome measure was the gender of presenters in 7 subspecialties, stratified by category and role. The proportion of female presenters was less than the American Board of Ophthalmology (ABO)-estimated proportion of women in their respective fields in glaucoma (28.0% vs 39.8%), neuro-ophthalmology (35.3% vs 45.3%), and pediatrics (42.1% vs 53.3%) and greater than expected in retina (24.6% vs 19.8%). Overall, the proportion of female presenters exceeded the ABO-estimated proportion of women in ophthalmology (24.5%) for clinical (mean=38.5%, 95% CI [35.8%, 41.4%]) and scientific (39.4% [30.3%, 49.2%]) sessions. For clinical subspecialty sessions, the proportion of female leaders exceeded the overall proportion of female leaders in the respective subspecialty in cornea (35.1% [30.4%, 40.1%] vs 24.6% all sessions). Females represented fewer than the expected number of surgical session leaders in cornea (22.0% [19.9%, 24.3%]), glaucoma (18.0% [13.2%, 24.1%]), pediatrics (22.0% [14.4%, 32.1%]), and retina (18.6% [14.2%, 24.1%]). Gender representation varied, with fewer than expected female presenters in glaucoma, neuro-ophthalmology, and pediatrics. Women led relatively more clinical sessions but were underrepresented in surgical sessions in most subspecialties.

Editorial introductions

Current Opinion in Ophthalmology was launched in 1990. It is one of a successful series of review journals whose unique format is designed to provide a systematic and critical assessment of the literature as presented in the many primary journals. The field of Ophthalmology is divided into nine sections that are reviewed once a year. Each section is assigned a Section Editor, a leading authority in the area, who identifies the most important topics at that time. Here we are pleased to introduce the Journal's Section Editors for this issue. SECTION EDITORS Dean M. CestariDean M. CestariDr Cestari completed residencies in both Neurology and Ophthalmology at the Cornell University Medical College's New York Presbyterian Hospital, as well as fellowship training in neuro-ophthalmology at the Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts, USA. He is one of approximately 10 physicians in the United States who is board certified by both the American Board of Ophthalmology and the American Board of Psychiatry & Neurology. Dr Cestari joined the full-time faculty of Mass. Eye and Ear, a primary teaching hospital for Harvard Medical School, in 2006 and currently holds the rank of Associate Professor of Ophthalmology, Harvard Medical School. He is very involved in medical education and is the Director of the Clinical Fellowship program at The Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary. His efforts as a clinician-scientist focus on the evaluation and treatment of patients who present with neuro-ophthalmic disease. He is also very involved in the medical and surgical treatment of thyroid eye disease with strabismus and diplopia. He just published a surgical textbook entitled, “Learning Strabismus Surgery, A Case Based Approach.” He supervises clinical fellows, second year residents and visiting medical students and performs adult strabismus surgery and mentors second year residents in the operating theater. Dr Cestari's translational research is focused on developing a rodent model for ischemic optic neuropathy and central retinal artery occlusion. Once this is accomplished, his team will begin to evaluate the safety and efficacy of various novel neuro-protective agents that can be used to preserve and restore vision affected by vascular occlusion. Additionally, he is working with a team of engineers from MIT and Harvard University to design and build an implantable device to restore ocular motility to denervated extra-ocular muscles from nerve palsys. John A. GonzalesJohn A. GonzalesDr Gonzales is an Associate Professor of Ophthalmology at the Francis I. Proctor Foundation at the University of California, San Francisco, USA specializing in uveitis and medical cornea. He is supported by an early career award from the National Institutes of Health – National Eye Institute to study the spectrum of keratoconjunctivitis sicca in Sjögren's syndrome utilizing the Sjögren's International Collaborative Clinical Alliance (SICCA) cohort. Dr Gonzales is also pursuing treatment strategies in cytomegalovirus anterior uveitis in immunocompetent individuals. Dr Gonzales's interests also extend to ocular oncology, specifically primary vitreoretinal lymphoma, and he is interested in how clinical features may be correlated with mutations associated with lymphoproliferation as well as resistance to chemotherapeutics. Dr Gonzales is a Section Editor for Current Opinion in Ophthalmology and is the uveitis fellowship program director at the Proctor Foundation.

Board Certification Is Associated With a Reduced Risk of Endophthalmitis After Intravitreal Injections.

This work investigates associations between physician qualifications and the risk of postintravitreal injection endophthalmitis. This retrospective analysis of data from medical claims studied Medicare beneficiaries undergoing 1 or more intravitreal injections between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2017. Logistic regression analysis was performed to assess whether board certification status or retina subspecialty training was associated with lower risk of postinjection endophthalmitis, controlling for patient's age, race, and sex, type of agent injected, diagnosis, and year of injection. The main outcome measure was odds ratio (OR) of receiving a diagnosis of endophthalmitis in the 14 days after intravitreal injection. Clinical outcome and quality of care were not evaluated in this study. A total of 2 907 324 intravitreal injections were performed on 219 640 patients by 4315 ophthalmologists, 3196 (74%) of whom were retina specialists and 4021 (92%) of whom were certified by the American Board of Ophthalmology (ABO). Overall, there were 1088 (0.037%) cases of postinjection endophthalmitis, of which 1024 (0.037%) were injected by ABO-certified ophthalmologists and 64 (0.050%) by non-board-certified ophthalmologists. Injections by ABO-certified ophthalmologist had 28% reduced odds of endophthalmitis (OR=0.72; 95% CI, 0.523-0.996, P=.05). Higher odds of endophthalmitis were observed for corticosteroid injections (OR=3.91; 95% CI, 2.75-5.56, P<.001) and aflibercept injections (OR=1.47; 95% CI, 1.19-1.80, P< .001). Patients' sex and race, the diagnosis associated with the injection, and providers' retina subspeciality training were not associated with the rate of endophthalmitis (P<.20 for all comparisons). We found evidence that endophthalmitis may be reduced when ABO-certified physicians perform an intravitreal injection.

Editorial introductions

Current Opinion in Ophthalmology was launched in 1990. It is one of a successful series of review journals whose unique format is designed to provide a systematic and critical assessment of the literature as presented in the many primary journals. The field of Ophthalmology is divided into nine sections that are reviewed once a year. Each section is assigned a Section Editor, a leading authority in the area, who identifies the most important topics at that time. Here we are pleased to introduce the Journal's Section Editors for this issue. SECTION EDITORS Dean M. CestariDean M. CestariDr Cestari completed residencies in both Neurology and Ophthalmology at the Cornell University Medical College's New York Presbyterian Hospital, as well as fellowship training in neuro-ophthalmology at the Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts, USA. He is one of approximately 10 physicians in the United States who is board certified by both the American Board of Ophthalmology and the American Board of Psychiatry & Neurology. Dr Cestari joined the full-time faculty of Mass. Eye and Ear, a primary teaching hospital for Harvard Medical School, in 2006 and currently holds the rank of Associate Professor of Ophthalmology, Harvard Medical School. He is very involved in medical education and is the Director of the Clinical Fellowship program at The Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary. His efforts as a clinician-scientist focus on the evaluation and treatment of patients who present with neuro-ophthalmic disease. He is also very involved in the medical and surgical treatment of thyroid eye disease with strabismus and diplopia. He just published a surgical textbook entitled, “Learning Strabismus Surgery, A Case Based Approach.” He supervises clinical fellows, second year residents and visiting medical students and performs adult strabismus surgery and mentors second year residents in the operating theater. Dr Cestari's translational research is focused on developing a rodent model for ischemic optic neuropathy and central retinal artery occlusion. Once this is accomplished, his team will begin to evaluate the safety and efficacy of various novel neuro-protective agents that can be used to preserve and restore vision affected by vascular occlusion. Additionally, he is working with a team of engineers from MIT and Harvard University to design and build an implantable device to restore ocular motility to denervated extra-ocular muscles from nerve palsys. John A. GonzalesJohn A. GonzalesDr Gonzales is an Associate Professor of Ophthalmology at the Francis I. Proctor Foundation at the University of California, San Francisco, USA specializing in uveitis and medical cornea. He is supported by an early career award from the National Institutes of Health – National Eye Institute to study the spectrum of keratoconjunctivitis sicca in Sjögren's syndrome utilizing the Sjögren's International Collaborative Clinical Alliance (SICCA) cohort. Dr Gonzales is also pursuing treatment strategies in cytomegalovirus anterior uveitis in immunocompetent individuals. Dr Gonzales's interests also extend to ocular oncology, specifically primary vitreoretinal lymphoma, and he is interested in how clinical features may be correlated with mutations associated with lymphoproliferation as well as resistance to chemotherapeutics. Dr Gonzales is a Section Editor for Current Opinion in Ophthalmology and is the uveitis fellowship program director at the Proctor Foundation.

Editorial introductions

Editorial introductions

Gender of Presenters at Ophthalmology Conferences Between 2015 and 2017

To analyze the proportion of women presenting at 9 major ophthalmology conferences over 3 years. Retrospective observational study. Conference brochures from 9 national ophthalmology conferences from 2015 to 2017 were analyzed. Genders of first author presenters of papers and non-papers (moderators, presenters at symposia, panel discussions, workshops/instructional courses) were recorded. Comparisons were made to the gender ratio of board-certified ophthalmologists. Student t test and Cochran-Armitage trend test was used for analysis, with significance at P < .05. Of 14,214 speakers, 30.5% were female, statistically higher than the expected 25.4% (P < .001). Paper presenters were 33.1% female (P < .001) and non-paper presenters were 28.5% female (P < .001). When stratified to general or subspecialty conference, general conferences had a higher proportion of women compared to the American Board of Ophthalmology (ABO) expected rates (P < .001) for paper and non-paper presentations. The rates of female presenters increased over the 3 years only at the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (P= .009). Subgroup analysis showed that women presented 33.1% of papers but only 28.5% of non-paper presentations, which is lower than expected (P < .001). Our results highlight positive trends: the overall proportions of female speakers exceed ABO estimates of female ophthalmologists. However, the gender gap remains at many subspecialty conferences, especially for non-papers, which are more likely to require invitations rather than being self-submitted. As demographics continue to change, further efforts are needed to assure equitable selection of conference presenters.

Editorial introductions

Current Opinion in Ophthalmology was launched in 1990. It is one of a successful series of review journals whose unique format is designed to provide a systematic and critical assessment of the literature as presented in the many primary journals. The field of Ophthalmology is divided into nine sections that are reviewed once a year. Each section is assigned a Section Editor, a leading authority in the area, who identifies the most important topics at that time. Here we are pleased to introduce the Journal's Section Editors for this issue. SECTION EDITORS Dean M. CestariDean M. CestariDr Cestari completed residencies in both Neurology and Ophthalmology at the Cornell University Medical College's New York Presbyterian Hospital, as well as fellowship training in neuro-ophthalmology at the Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts, USA. He is one of approximately 10 physicians in the United States who is board certified by both the American Board of Ophthalmology and the American Board of Psychiatry & Neurology. Dr Cestari joined the full-time faculty of The Massachusetts Eye and Ear, a primary teaching hospital for Harvard Medical School, in 2006 and currently holds the rank of Associate Professor of Ophthalmology, Harvard Medical School. He is very involved in medical education and is the Director of the Clinical Fellowship program at The Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary. His efforts as a clinician-scientist focus on the evaluation and treatment of patients who present with neuro-ophthalmic disease. He is also very involved in the medical and surgical treatment of thyroid eye disease with strabismus and diplopia. He just published a surgical textbook entitled, “Learning Strabismus Surgery, A Case Based Approach.” He supervises clinical fellows, second year residents and visiting medical students and performs adult strabismus surgery and mentors second year residents in the operating theater. Dr Cestari's translational research is focused on developing a rodent model for ischemic optic neuropathy and central retinal artery occlusion. Once this is accomplished, his team will begin to evaluate the safety and efficacy of various novel neuro-protective agents that can be used to preserve and restore vision affected by vascular occlusion. Additionally, he is working with a team of engineers from MIT and Harvard University to design and build an implantable device to restore ocular motility to denervated extra-ocular muscles from nerve palsys. John A. GonzalesJohn A. GonzalesDr Gonzales is an Associate Professor of Ophthalmology at the Francis I. Proctor Foundation at the University of California, San Francisco, USA specializing in uveitis and medical cornea. He is supported by an early career award from the National Institutes of Health – National Eye Institute to study the spectrum of keratoconjunctivitis sicca in Sjögren's syndrome utilizing the Sjögren's International Collaborative Clinical Alliance (SICCA) cohort. Dr Gonzales is also pursuing treatment strategies in cytomegalovirus anterior uveitis in immunocompetent individuals. Dr Gonzales's interests also extend to ocular oncology, specifically primary vitreoretinal lymphoma, and he is interested in how clinical features may be correlated with mutations associated with lymphoproliferation as well as resistance to chemotherapeutics. Dr Gonzales is a Section Editor for Current Opinion in Ophthalmology and is the uveitis fellowship program director at the Proctor Foundation.

New classification system for pediatric glaucoma: implications for clinical care and a research registry.

The Childhood Glaucoma Research Network (CGRN) has created a new classification system for childhood glaucoma that has become the first International Consensus Classification. The purpose of this review is to present this classification system and share its use to date. The diagnoses of the classification system include glaucoma and glaucoma suspect. The primary glaucomas include: primary congenital glaucoma and juvenile open-angle glaucoma. The secondary glaucomas include: glaucoma following cataract surgery, glaucoma associated with nonacquired systemic disease or syndrome, glaucoma associated with nonacquired ocular anomalies, and glaucoma associated with acquired conditions. This system reached consensus agreement at the Ninth World Glaucoma Association Consensus, which has been adopted by the American Board of Ophthalmology, and has been implemented in outcomes research, incidence studies, and review articles. The new Robison D. Harley, MD CGRN International Pediatric Glaucoma Registry uses this classification system as a shared language, allowing international clinicians and researchers to collaborate and make large-scale investigations of this otherwise rare disease possible. The diagnoses in this system are assigned by following a logical and systematically approachable path. The ability to easily adopt and implement the system lends itself to international research.

Editorial introductions

Editorial introductions

Editorial introductions

Current Opinion in Ophthalmology was launched in 1990. It is one of a successful series of review journals whose unique format is designed to provide a systematic and critical assessment of the literature as presented in the many primary journals. The field of Ophthalmology is divided into nine sections that are reviewed once a year. Each section is assigned a Section Editor, a leading authority in the area, who identifies the most important topics at that time. Here we are pleased to introduce the Journal's Section Editors for this issue. SECTION EDITORS Dean M. CestariDean M. CestariDr Cestari completed residencies in both Neurology and Ophthalmology at the Cornell University Medical College's New York Presbyterian Hospital, as well as fellowship training in neuro-ophthalmology at the Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, Harvard Medical School (HMS). He is one of approximately 10 physicians in the United States who is board certified by both the American Board of Ophthalmology and the American Board of Psychiatry & Neurology. Dr Cestari joined the full-time faculty of Mass. Eye and Ear, a primary teaching hospital for HMS, in 2006 and currently holds the rank of Assistant Professor of Ophthalmology, Harvard Medical School. He is very involved in medical education and is the Director of the Clinical Fellowship program at Mass. Eye and Ear. His efforts as a clinician-scientist focus on the evaluation and treatment of patients who present with neuro-ophthalmic disease. He is also very involved in the medical and surgical treatment of Thyroid Eye Disease with strabismus and diplopia. He just published a surgical textbook entitled, “Learning Strabismus Surgery, A Case Based Approach.” He supervises clinical fellows, second-year residents and visiting medical students and performs adult strabismus surgery and mentors second-year residents in the operating theater. Dr Cestari's translational research is focused on developing a rodent model for ischemic optic neuropathy and central retinal artery occlusion. Once this is accomplished, his team will begin to evaluate the safety and efficacy of various novel neuro-protective agents that can be used to preserve and restore vision affected by vascular occlusion. Additionally, he is working with a team of engineers from MIT and Harvard University to design and build an implantable device to restore ocular motility to denervated extra-ocular muscles from nerve palsys. Russell W. ReadRussell W. ReadDr Read graduated magna cum laude in 1994 from the University of Alabama School of Medicine in Birmingham (UAB), Alabama, USA. Dr Read completed a residency in ophthalmology at the University of Washington, Seattle, USA and dual fellowships at the Doheny Eye Institute, USA/University of Southern California, USA, in uveitis/ocular inflammatory diseases and ophthalmic pathology. Dr Read joined the faculty of the UAB Department of Ophthalmology in August 2000 where he is now Professor of Ophthalmology and Pathology. Dr Read is actively involved in the clinical care of patients with uveitis and ocular inflammatory diseases and serves as the Executive Secretary of the American Uveitis Society. He is the residency program Director for ophthalmology.

Corneal Infections—Challenges in Diagnosis and Update on Management

Bennie H Jeng is Professor and Chair of the Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences at the University of Maryland School of Medicine. He earned his bachelor’s degree summa cum laude from Washington University and his MD from the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine. He then completed his ophthalmology residency and chief residency at the Cole Eye Institute of the Cleveland Clinic, which was followed by a fellowship in cornea and external diseases at the Francis I. Proctor Foundation/University of California San Francisco (UCSF) in 2003. He then returned back to the Cole Eye Institute to serve on faculty, during which time he was the recipient of a K-grant from the NIH and also earned his Master degree in Clinical Investigation. He subsequently returned to Proctor/UCSF as an Associate Professor and then Full Professor, where he served as co-director of the UCSF cornea service, Director of the Proctor/UCSF Cornea Fellowship program, and as Chief of Ophthalmology at the San Francisco General Hospital. He was an R01-funded researcher at UCSF, and he assumed his current position at the University of Maryland in August, 2013. Dr Jeng is actively involved in the leadership of many of our ophthalmologic societies, including as a member of the Board of Directors of the Cornea Society, the Eye Bank Association of America, and the Contact Lens Association of Ophthalmologists. He also serves on several committees of the American Academy of Ophthalmology, including the Annual Meeting Program Committee, as well as The Council. He is also actively involved with the American Board of Ophthalmology. Dr Jeng is a past member of the editorial board of JAMA Ophthalmology, and he currently serves on the editorial boards of Ophthalmology, Eye, Cornea, Eye and Contact Lens (as an Associate Editor), and International Journal of Eye Banking.

The History, Role, and Value of Public Directors on Certifying Boards: The American Board of Ophthalmology Experience

The mission of the American Board of Ophthalmology (ABO) is to serve the public by improving the quality of ophthalmic practice through a continuing certification process that fosters excellence and encourages continual learning. Since 2001, achieving this mission has been enhanced by including public directors in the ABO governance. We review the evolution of including nonprofessional members on the governing boards of professional regulatory and self-regulatory organizations generally, provide history about the incorporation of non-professional public directors into the governance structure of the American Board of Medical Specialties and the ABO, and offer insights about the perceived impact of public directors on the ABO.

A Century of Board Directors

The selection of directors of the American Board of Ophthalmology (ABO) initially was carried out by the 3 founding organizations of the ABO: the American Medical Association, the American Ophthalmological Society, and the American Academy of Ophthalmology and Otolaryngology. Since 1982, the ABO has chosen its own directors and, in 2001, began adding public directors. It is only in recent years that women comprise an increasing proportion of ABO directors.

The American Board of Ophthalmology Tie

This article discusses the efforts of the American Board of Ophthalmology (ABO) to recognize and celebrate the contributions of its volunteers to certification programs and processes. In recognition of service to the ABO, all directors and examiners received ties for men and scarves for women bearing the ABO logo and colors. This article briefly describes the rationale and the importance of these articles for those who receive them.