Background: The circumstances surrounding the current COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated the employment of telemedicine for administering care to patients and families. There is difficulty of seeking medical help among those with chronic and recurrent illness like asthma. The authors conducted a metanalysis to determine whether telemedicine for asthma management is effective Objective: This study aimed to systematically review the effectiveness of telemedicine consultation among asthmatic adults and children in terms of: a) asthma control, b) quality of life, c) cost effectiveness, d) lung function and e) exacerbations. Methods: A comprehensive search of randomized controlled trials was performed using the MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, clinical trial registries (e.g., clinicaltrials.gov, clinicaltrialregister.eu) and relevant websites. The authors were interested in studies that measured these outcomes: asthma control, quality of life, cost effectiveness, lung function and exacerbations. Three reviewers identified studies for inclusion in this meta-analysis. They extracted data then used fixed effect and random effect modelling. Results: The authors identified 15 RCTs with total of 3,015 enrolled patients. A variety of telemedicine interventions were incorporated: telephone and Internet-based models of care. Most control used was the conventional face-to-face. Meta-analysis did not show a clinically important improvement in patients’ asthma control and lung function, there was no significant reduction in the number of hospital admission and visits to the emergency department over 12 months and not significantly cost effective. However, there was a significant improvement in the quality of life (95% CI [0.05, 0.29], p = 0.006). Conclusion Although nothing beats the advantage of physically seeing patients face-to-face, this study just supports the knowledge that telemedicine offers promising alternative to promote good communication between patients and caregivers, resulting in adherence to asthma management, which leads to better asthma control, improvement of patients’ quality of life, lung function, better cost-effectiveness and decrease in ER visits and exacerbation.
Telemedicine ; Asthma

OBJECTIVE: To compare the different intraocular lens (IOL) calculation formulas available on the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery (ASCRS) IOL power calculator website among Asian eyes with previous corneal refractive surgery. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of 84 eyes in 68 Asian patients who had phacoemulsification with previous LASIK or photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) was done. Using the post-phacoemulsification manifest refraction spherical equivalent (MRSE) as target refraction, IOL prediction error (PE) for each formula was calculated as the implanted minus the predicted IOL power. Refractive PE was determined by calculating that 1 diopter (D) of IOL PE produces 0.7 D of refractive error at the spectacle plane. RESULTS: Comparing the Shammas, Haigis-L, Barrett True-K No History, ASCRS Average IOL Power No History, Barrett True-K, and ASCRS Average IOL Power with Change in Manifest Refraction (ΔMR), the mean IOL PEs ranged from -0.23 to -0.62 D, with the Barrett True-K having the lowest PE. The median refractive PEs for all formulas were similar at 0.35 D, except for the Haigis-L at 0.53 D. The ASCRS average with ΔMR had a statistically higher percentage of eyes within 0.5 D of target refraction versus other formulas (p<0.05). The Haigis-L IOL PE and refractive PE were significantly higher than the Barrett True-K (p<0.001), and the ASCRS average with ΔMR (p<0.001) respectively. The ASCRS average with ΔMR produced a significantly smaller variance of IOL PE (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: Accounting for PEs and variance, the ASCRS average IOL power with ΔMR is recommended, followed by the ASCRS average IOL power No History if without historical data.
Keratomileusis, Laser In Situ