English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The goals of the subcommittee were to review the current practice and published evidence of medical and surgical treatment options for meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD) and to identify areas with conflicting, or lack of, evidence, observations, concepts, or even mechanisms where further research is required. To achieve these goals, a comprehensive review of clinical textbooks and the scientific literature was performed and the quality of published evidence graded according to an agreed on standard, using objective criteria for clinical and basic research studies adapted from the American Academy of Ophthalmology Practice Guidelines1 (Table 1). It should be noted that, in many of the clinical textbooks and previous reports, terminology is often interchanged and the management of anterior and posterior blepharitis and/or meibomitis is often considered concurrently. Thus, a broad scope of documents was reviewed in this process. Consistency in terminology and global adoption of the term “meibomian gland dysfunction” would significantly aid clinical research and clinical care in MGD going forward.    Table 1.  Grading Level of Evidence of Clinical and Basic Research Studies1

The International Workshop on Meibomian Gland Dysfunction: Report of the Subcommittee on Management and Treatment of Meibomian Gland Dysfunction