Talk:Cataract surgery

This page distinguishes polymethyl methacrylate lenses and sodium acrylate lenses from acrylic lenses. However, "acrylic" is a term that is commonly used as a synonym for polymethyl methacrylate (tradenames Plexiglas and Lucite). If it is not being used as a synonym, it means a more general concept which would include both polymethyl methacrylate and sodium acrylate (with which it is also being distinguished).

An edit is reccommended.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.203.154.12 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 28 September 2005 (UTC).

We need something on the history of this procedure. When did man first try to remove cataracts? How did the procedure evolve into one of the safest? Lou Sander 03:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I made a start with it. --WS 11:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I've been wondering what they did about anesthesia in the early days of modern cataract surgery. Also, family members recall from the 1940s and 1950s that patients' heads were immobilized for quite a while after the procedure. This might be a good addition to the history. Lou Sander 11:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The earliest date of 29 AD contradicts what I've read elsewhere, that cataract surgery was known in the 3rd century BC. I'm not editing the article because I'm really not an expert. "Chrysippus remarks that this example is belied by the existence of people whose sight was restored by cataract removal operations." (Russo, _The Forgotten Revolution_ p. 212. The source is noted as Simplicius's commentary on Aristotle, from the 6th C. AD -- perhaps the article here is preferring the more direct early mention.) 71.84.245.174 (talk) 21:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The opening paragraph includes the statement "It is one of the safest and most successful procedures in all of medicine". This seems to be a rather bold statement to make without any data referenced to back it up. --151.190.254.108 12:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Although what constitutes "safe" and what constitutes "effective" is certainly open to a bit of interpretation, I have added a citation that backs up the statement. -AED 16:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

There is quite a lot of literature and statistics to back this up. It is not only one of the safest and most successful, but also one of the quickest and most common non-trivial procedures, but it is necessary to support it with references, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 13:27, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

[Note: I am not an medical professional, but a 54 year old IT professional who understands the process of structuring this type of content, but more importantly has recently had phaco based replacement of both lenses due to early onset cataracts, so I understand very well how this all feels from the other end of the knife ----]

I see that you've been tidying up and improving this article but I still feel that is structure and relationship to other articles needs tidying further.

First Types of surgery: you've got three broad types of surgical procedure and this section should be structured accoundingly

Phaco based ECCE

Conventional ECCE

ICCE

This is the correct order because it is ranked in order of usage. The Phaco summary should include the reasons for Phaco's popularity: efficiency and effectiveness of procedure and short recover times. Conventional ECCE and ICCE should include a short discriminant to explain when they are still used in preference to Phaco.

Intraocular lens implantation is not a type of surgery but a common stage in all three procedures. It therefore does not belong in Types of surgery but in its own following section. I did wonder why ths merits its own section but the real reason for it being here is to summarise very briefly the IOL options, and to hook to the IOL article itself for the detail. This hook should also explain that the IOL section will discuss the optic characteristics of the various options (which it currently doesn't BTW).

This section currently includes detail on complications, which doesn't belong here. This needs to be consolidated with the discussion in the Operating Procedures or Complications sections.

Likewise Intracapsular cataract extraction is a type of surgery and this test should be hoisted into the above bullet.

Preoperative Evaluation Gosh you can tell that this article was written by doctors for doctors. You've forgotten the most important part of the eval from the patients perspective: you need to do the biometry so that the IOLs are correctly proscribed for the patents needs.

Operating Procedures also wanders into Post Operative Care and Recovery. This need split into two separate sections. First the procedures themselves miss some key points such as it being absolutely essential that the patient remains still during the procedure, and therefore depending on anxiety level different forms of local anaesthesia and mild sedation may be appropriate and in the extreme general anaesthesia be in the best interests of some patients. [Isn't this uncontrolled patient movement one of the main factors in posterior capsular tears?]

Also I do think that you should elude to the visual effects experience by patients as they watch their lenses being liquefied and removed "from the inside" -- this is a truly bizarre (almost psychedelic) and disturbing experience.

Somewhere you should discuss the appropriateness of AK which is currently omitted.

Next the Post Operative Care and Recovery should be structured chronologically, first discussing immediate post op. For example in my case the dilation drops dilate the pupil larger than the diameter of the IOL allowing unfocused light to pass directly onto the retina, causing a degree of white-out / loss of contrast for about six hours past the op and somewhat similar to the opification caused by the cataracts themselves -- very disturbing until I worked out the optics of what was going on here. Secondly the typical recovery times for iris function. It took over 24 hrs before the iris returned to approximately normal diameter, and about 4 weeks whilst its responsiveness was degraded causing some degree of photophobia. This is the point to discuss anti-inflammatory and antibiotic drops ,and cleaning regimes to avoid fungal as well as antibiotic infection.

And one final point is the issue of the changing corneal geometry -- particularly for the first two months after the operation -- and the impact this may have on any corrective prescriptions. For someone like myself with ~1.5D of astigmatism pre op, and needing to read / write 8+ hrs a day on a PC this was a real strain and issue.

[Though I have quoted my experiences in this discussion, I am not trying to personalise the article itself. I accept that this article should remain largely written by medical professionals, but acknowledging that vast majority of readers will be cataract sufferers or their relatives. We should address their potential concerns. If I as a cataract sfferer experience these issues, then they might be common enough at least touched on in the article. However, if the main drafter are interested I can mock up my proposed new structure in my sandbox sothat you can see a draft the overall changes]

One final point: the IOL article needs major change to align with this but I will discuss this in said article. TerryE 02:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Been there, done that, got the T-shirt (more accurately got a new pair of IOLs).

Good recommendations, and the current structure is much as described. TerryE if you ever read this, you should know that this, like many other articles on Wikipedia, was largely written by people who are not medical professionals or recognised specialists in the topic, but had the time and interest to contribute. That is why we insist on reliable references. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 13:16, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Mention if two eyes are ever operated on on the same day.

• Then how will you get home?
• But at a remote rural once a year clinic (if there is such) in a impoverished country, maybe it would make sense.

Jidanni 10:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

 Done · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 12:56, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

ambulatory (rather than inpatient) setting

whereupon you commence to lose the reader in a forest of fancy unlinked words throughout the remainder of the article. Ambulatory must mean in an ambulance, he thinks. Great :-( Jidanni 11:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Ambulatory means walking. It is not a particularly obscure word. In this context it refers to out-patient setting where the person goes home shortly after the operation. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:19, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

The English used here is not idiomatic. I will try to clean it up in August if no one else does so first. 75.38.55.182 (talk) 09:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC) msj

I believe that your article needs to also mention Small Incision Cataract Surgery (SICS). As far as I understand Phaco is NOT the standard all over the world but the standard in developed countries.

SICS is cheaper and faster than phaco with similar benefits and applied in many high volume type scenarios (a surgeon might do 4-5 surgeries in a day in Australia, but in Nepal I have seen them do 60). It does not require as much expensive disposable equipment. SICS also does not require sutures, see http://www.cybersight.org/bins/content_page.asp?cid=1-1809-1834 for more info.

Dash —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.66.193.244 (talk) 06:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

This has been done, see MSICS. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 12:08, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Manual small incision cataract surgery (MSICS) is now also an article in its own right

Can I play golf? Can I take the long trip airplane such as international fly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.221.115.80 (talk) 17:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia does not provide medical, legal or other advice. Please ask your doctor. --Janke | Talk 09:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
• It depends on the quality of vision after the surgery, which often depends on a set of factors not directly related to the cataracts, YMMD. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 12:11, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I recently had cataract surgery on my right eye. I experienced a complication that I do not see listed in the article. As my doctor explained to me, the crystalline lens (old lens) is fragmented during surgery, and then the fragments are removed. One or more significant fragments of my old lens were missed, requiring a second surgery two days later. I have seen this particular complication referenced at places other than Wikipedia, which in my experience is unusual: that is, usually Wikipedia articles are quite thorough. I would really appreciate some feedback on this. 66.26.236.105 (talk) 14:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Added, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 12:15, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Followed by three bullet points?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.178.19 (talk) 14:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition;-) (don't worry if you dont get the reference) · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 12:19, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

This article has been edited by a user who is known to have misused sources to unduly promote certain views (see WP:Jagged 85 cleanup). Examination of the sources used by this editor often reveals that the sources have been selectively interpreted or blatantly misrepresented, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent.

Please help by viewing the entry for this article shown at the page, and check the edits to ensure that any claims are valid, and that any references do in fact verify what is claimed.

I searched the page history, and found 18 edits by Jagged 85 (for example, see thisedits). Tobby72 (talk) 00:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Most of the claims have been checked and the refs found relevant and valid, or the text changed, though it is always possible that something has been missed. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 13:00, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Quoting the article:

There are three main types of cataract surgery:

Phacoemulsification (Phaco) .................

Conventional extracapsular cataract extraction (ECCE):...............

Intracapsular cataract extraction (ICCE) ................ After lens removal, an artificial plastic lens (an intraocular lens implant) can be placed in either the anterior chamber or sutured into the sulcus. (end quote)

The way this is set up, it appears that ONLY IN THE THIRD TYPE is an artificial lens implanted. I'm sure this is not the case but I don't know enough to change this. Please will someone take a look at this? Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 14:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 13:01, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cataract surgery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080826095607/http://www.medrounds.org/bookstore/ProductDetail.php?product_id=79 to http://www.medrounds.org/bookstore/ProductDetail.php?product_id=79
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081017055832/http://www.pcli.com/cataract/history.html to http://www.pcli.com/cataract/history.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726035011/http://www.escrs.org/Publications/Eurotimes/05September/pdf/couching.pdf to http://www.escrs.org/Publications/Eurotimes/05September/pdf/couching.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.aao.org/news/academy_express/20060405.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Reviewer: Oltrepier (talk · contribs) 14:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cataract surgery/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hello, thank you for nominating this article! I'm planning to start this review and get it over the line in the next few days. As a Medicine student, I'll do my best to help get the article in better shape: however, while I'm already familiar with navigating databases such as PubMed, NCBI and OMIM, I must note that I've made only a few edits on healthcare-related pages in here so far, and I'm keeping learning the basics of editing medical articles. That being said, I hope my contributions will still be helpful and correct enough. Oltrepier (talk) 14:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Recommendations for improvement always welcome. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 15:33, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

One of the things that is not listed in the GA criteria specifically is whether the content is reasonably accessible to the people likely to read it. As a medical student, you should be a notch above the target audience, so if you find anything vague, or incomprehensible, it probably needs to be fixed. Just let me know. It has very recently been given a pretty thorough copy edit by a competent editor from WP:GOCE, so the language should be fine. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 16:35, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

As GA reviewer you are not actually expected to make the improvements yourself. The tradition is to tell the nominator what needs to be done, but sometimes it is less work to just make an uncontroversial edit yourself instead of explaining the issue. I am not fussy. If I don't like it, I will explain why. If it doesn't matter I will just leave it, and if it is a good change I will let you know too. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 16:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

@Peter Southwood Perfectly fine, thank you for clarifying! I should be able to go through the entire article and give my verdict tomorrow. Oltrepier (talk) 19:53, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

• @Pbsouthwood: Well, it's safe to say that I didn't deliver on my original promise, so I wanted to apologize for it. Still, I've finally finished checking the article and the sources, and I'll comment on that right down below! I must address I've boldly done some more copy-editing myself throughout the whole page, in an attempt to simplify and improve several statements, so let me know what you think about it: you and Baffle gab1978 already did an excellent job at improving the article overall, though!

• Some comments and queries on your edits. They are interleaved to make it easier to find the context.
  • Many appear to be slight improvements in readability or represent a difference in style between you, Baffle gab1978 and myself. They might be technically out of scope for GA review, but I am fine with that.
  • You have added several redundant links, whereas Baffle gab1978 removed several redundant links. I am not fussy about redundant links, and consider them to often be useful to the reader. You have also added links to things which I had not thought necessary, but on reflection may be useful to some readers. So also no problem to me.
  • You changed text to the cataract is extracted through a cryoprobe (my empasis), which to me implies that a cryoprobe is hollow and large enough for a cataract to pass through. I am not conversant with the structural details, but I found this surprising and counterintuitive. Is this what you intended to convey, and do you have a source to support it? · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 08:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
    • I found some information on cryoprobes. It is definitely not a hollow tube through which a cataract can be drawn, the tip is small and the cataract is frozen to the end. I have reverted this change.· · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 09:22, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
      • Thank you for addressing these: to be honest, I tried to make edits and add/remove links just whenever I thought it was genuinely needed, but obviously, different copy-editors can have very different views on the same article. About the "cryoprobe" phrase, you're definitely right: I didn't mention English is not my first language, so I've likely misunderstood the original text... Well done reversing my mistake. Oltrepier (talk) 12:26, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

So, let's start with some general notes: the article is very well-structured and focused, and the documentation you provided looks pretty good. I'm a bit concerned about the fact that some citations single-handedly cover very large chunks of text (look at the start of this section and this paragraph, for example), but it's probably not a big deal: you can just repeat each citation a few times through their respective text blocks, if needed. Also, there are instances where the same bits of information seem to be repeated in different - areas of the article (about OVDs, in this case), which could be useful in some cases, but still leads to the risk of redundancy.

• The general rule om English Wikipedia is to put a citation at the end of an uninterrupted preceding piece of content within a paragraph that is covered by the source, so if it covers the whole paragraph, once at the end is necessary and sufficient. This can be confused with supporting the whole paragraph when it only supports the end section, but there is no specific guidance on that. More frequent citation can avoid this problem, but not everyone approves. The paragraphs you mention are as far as I remember cases where the reference supports all the preceding content in that paragraph, and could fairly be added after every punctuation in the paragraph, to go to the opposite extreme. Personally I do not really care. If you prefer each sequential sentence to be individually cited to the same source, we can do that. In medical articles this has been done quite often, and has been the cause of edit wars with some editors, who have subsequently been blocked. In this article, I could probably find half a dozen MEDRS compliant references for each sentence in those paragraphs, but I doubt that it would improve the article in any meaningful way. Let me know where in the paragraphs you think repetition of the citation would be appropriate, and I will cheerfully do it, or alternatively you could do it yourself if you are willing to accept my word or check the sources for relevance.· · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 08:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
• Repetition of information does occur, and in the case you mention, the one place is a section describing the relevance of OVDs to the procedure, where some detail is clearly relevant, and the other mentions their historical relevance, where I put in what I thought to be some necessary or useful clarification for the reader who does not read the whole article in sequence and does not know what OVDs are. It is a judgement call whether the second description is redundant. I though it useful, just like you appear to consider the redundant links useful, and they will be useful to some readers and not to others. Avoiding repetition of some information can tighten up an article but can also make it very dense and more difficult to read. I don't see an urgent need to make a change at GA level. For FA it becomes more debatable, so I propose to leave it till then, when it will be considered by a wider range of editors.· · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 08:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Oh, I wasn't fully aware about that rule, so I've usually had a careful approach to citations while reviewing GA and DYK nominations; that's fine as it is, then. The same goes for repetition of information: the fact that readers could just jump to a specific section of an article completely went out of my mind while I was reviewing this, so sorry for it... Oltrepier (talk) 12:26, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I've inserted a few "warning" templates throughout the "History" and "Regional practice and statistics" sections, because I thought some of the physicians (and regions) you mentioned were addressed a bit too vaguely: I would try to write as many full names as possible. On a side note, it was a nice idea to include footnotes, although I think they need to be integrated with citations, too.

• I will try to identify the people more fully, but sources often do not provide full names, just the names people use in their publications, so probably will not succeed. This is definitely out of scope for GA, but I approve of the general principle as it will be an improvement, and will redlink. Some day the links may work. Maybe you will find some names.· · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 08:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
  • I have expanded the names you tagged as far as is reasonably practicable and left them as redlinks. I could not find any similar tags in the regional sections. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 09:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
• I am not clear on what you mean by nice idea to include footnotes, although I think they need to be integrated with citations, too. Integrated with citations in what way? · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 08:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Well done! Actually, ignore what I said about footnotes: only on second thought, I realized it made no sense at all... Oltrepier (talk) 12:26, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Finally, I wanted to make a few questions about some odd phrases I found here and there:

- "Posterior capsule rupture can cause lens fragments to be retained, corneal oedema, and cystoid macular oedema" Is "lens fragments to be retained" one of the rupture's consequences, or was it a typo?

• I thought I had already explained this, but I cant find it, so here goes. It is not a typo. Fragments of the lens can pass through a rupture into the vitreous, where they can be difficult to extract, sometimes requiring intervention from a specialist, and sometimes causing medical complications due to this retention, or due to vitreous extruding into the anterior of the eye. Do you think a detailed explanation of the possible complications is necessary or desirable? · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 09:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Ok, got it: it's probably fine as it is. Oltrepier (talk) 12:26, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

- "PVD may be more problematic with younger patients because many patients older than 60 have already gone through PVD." Isn't it kind of an obvious statement?

• Obvious is in the eye of the beholder. The author of the source thought it was worth mentioning, and it was not so obvious to me either, so I mentioned it. We need to consider the ordinary reader, and I know I tend to overestimate their capacity and background knowledge.· · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 17:52, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

- "In very thick opacified posterior capsules, a manual surgical capsulectomy might be needed. A posterior capsulotomy must be taken in consideration in the event of IOL replacement [...]" Are "capsulectomy" and "capsulotomy" interchangeable terms?

• I would not have thought so. -otomy generally means to cut the thing, while -ectomy means to cut the thing out. I will check the quoted content in context and see what sense it makes. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 17:52, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
  • As far as I can tell, usage of both words is correct in the context. Do you think explanatory footnotes or links are necessary?

- "Endophthalmitis' typical presentation occurs within two weeks after the procedure [...] Hypopyon occurs about 80% of the time. Common infective agents include coagulase-negative staphylococci and Staphylococcus aureus in about 80% of infections." So, those two types of staphylococci count for 80% of all endophthalmitis infections, right?

• As far as I can tell, that is what the sources say. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 08:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Perfect, it was just to make sure I understood correctly, so thank you for clarifying. Oltrepier (talk) 12:26, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

- "A ten-year prospective survey on refractive outcomes [...] showed a mean difference between the targeted and outcome refraction of −0.07 dioptres, with a standard deviation of 0.67, and a mean absolute error of 0.50 dioptres. 88.76% were within one diopter of target refraction and 62.36% within 0.50 dioptres." Do those two last percentage values refer to "refractive outcomes"?

• As far as I know, yes. I may have misinterpreted the source, but you can check that. Is there something about the way it is written that suggests otherwise? · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 08:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
  • No, it's just another instance where I didn't make the connection immediately... All good! Oltrepier (talk) 12:26, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

- "Although direct evidence for cataract surgery in ancient Egypt is lacking, the indirect evidence, including surgical instruments that could have been used, show that it was possible. It is assumed that the couching technique was used." I didn't understand this phrase, to be honest...

• Indirect evidence is instruments that could be used for the procedure, and a wall painting that can be interpreted as showing the procedure. Direct evidence would be text describing it, or a mummified body with eyes that are sufficiently preserved to show that the lenses had been surgically removed. The indirect evidence is compatible with couching, but not with other procedures. Also, that is what the sources say. Can you suggest how it could be clarified? · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 08:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Oh, ok, got it. I would just complete the phrase as "instruments that could have been used for the procedure", and that would be enough. Oltrepier (talk) 12:26, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
    • Ok, done that. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 17:52, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

- "According to surveys of members of the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery, approximately 2.85 million cataract procedures were performed in the United States throughout 2004, while 2.79 million operations were executed in 2005." Actually, this phrase is alright, but I still wanted to flag it because its supporting citation is marked as a dead link: if possible, can you replace it?

• I have already tried without success. Dead links are a thing we have to live with. If you feel that it is likely to be inaccurate, you may remove it. To me the numbers are entirely plausible, and I have seen no reason to consider them controversial, or even of much importance in the bigger picture. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 08:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes, what I'm worried about is that having dead links here and there is always a bit awkward, but I think you're right. Oltrepier (talk) 12:26, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

- "There have been occasional incidents in which patients have been infected and developed endophthalmitis [...], but the effects upon sterility of equipment or plausible infection pathways have not been reported." I think this entire block could be trimmed and made a bit easier to read, to be honest...

• I will look into this. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 08:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
  • I have made a small adjustment which I hope will clarify the situation a bit. That paragraph was originally a rather pointed bit of unbalanced and undue criticism by someone with an apparent agenda against the system, who filed to take into account that things can occasionally go wrong without actual malfeasance necessarily being involved. I tried to balance it by adding a bit of relevant context and leaving the reader to draw their own conclusions based on what information was available. The statistics must speak for themselves as no-one has provided a convenient summary in a reliable source. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 17:52, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

- "The higher cataract-surgery coverage found in some settings in South Africa, Libya, and Kenya suggest many barriers to surgery can be overcome." The coverage in those areas was higher than... in the rest of the African regions involved in the studies, right?

• The context is Africa, which is the section title.· · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 08:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Got it, thank you. Oltrepier (talk) 12:26, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

- "In 2011, Lecuona and Cook identified an inadequate level of human resources in the public sector to provide care for the indigent population." Given the context of that paragraph, "inadequate level" refers to a lack of preparation and training for surgeons, rather than a lack of staff members, doesn't it?

• I think it is more complicated than that. There are a lot of surgeons in private practice with well equipped clinics in relatively wealthy urban areas, who do not treat the indigent because they are not charities, and could do more surgeries if someone was prepared to cover the expenses. Some of them do pro bono work at state hospitals, but not all. If you have the money you can get world class surgery with a waiting time of about a week, if not, you can wait over a year. 6 months if you are lucky, 2 or more years if you are in the wrong place. The detail I have provided is what is available from the sources, which do not cover everything. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 08:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes, you explained it perfectly: by the way, we see similar problems involving private and public hospitals here in Italy, as well... Oltrepier (talk) 12:26, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Ok, that's all for now: I hope I've addressed my doubts and corrections clearly enough. Let me know what do you think about this! Oltrepier (talk) 19:51, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

@Pbsouthwood: Oh, I almost forgot: when I first took a quick look at the article, it still had some missing sources in the paragraph describing phacoemulsification, so I went on to search some studies involving the technique: let me know if they could still be useful to improve the page! 1; 2; 3; 4.

• I looked at the abstracts, but it is not clear what information you consider is in scope for this article, rather than Phacoemulsification. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 09:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
• Which paragraph describing phacoemulsification is lacking sources? Please tag in the article. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 10:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

No, that section hasn't got issues with sourcing anymore: I think there were one or two "citation needed" tags when I read the article for the first time, but then you fixed those before I wrote this review, so no worries! And I'm aware the abstracts were specifically for phacoemulsification: I just thought they could be useful to add some more bits of information if you needed it. They're just "bonus" material, though. Oltrepier (talk) 12:26, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I did also find a 2008 article describing surgical conditions in Sub-Saharan Africa, which actually included information about cataract surgery in India and Nepal. I hope it helps! Oltrepier (talk) 20:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

• I will take a look. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 09:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

• I took a look. The information in the findings is much the same as information already mentioned in the article. If there is more that you think should be mentioned, you can add it any time. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 10:00, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

What problems relating to Manual of Style (Item 1b) remain outstanding? I don't remember seeing anything in your comments.· · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 10:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

None, I think... It mainly involved the few "green-lighted" statements I've cited up above, and now we should have cleared them all. Thank you so much for going through every query! Oltrepier (talk) 12:26, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

You are welcome, and thank you for reviewing. It is a team job even though the team is small. For future reference, I find it easier to keep track if each review point discussion has a header, and each section discussion has a header. Makes it easier to find things, and saves time when editing. Cheers,· · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 18:19, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@Pbsouthwood: Thank you for the advice: I admit I'm still struggling with the source editor... Anyway, I think we're definitely good to go now, so let's pass this review. Excellent job! Oltrepier (talk) 19:00, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Oltrepier, I have the opposite problem. If I try to edit with VE I usually find there is something I cannot do, so I almost always edit in source, which was all that was available when I started here. There is a bit of a steep learning curve, but also great versatility. Also I worry if I don't use it, I'll lose it. Thanks again for your input, and if you think of a good hook for DYK you are welcome to nominate on my behalf. I am not really into that side of things. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 04:45, 22 August 2023 (UTC)