Kerato-lenticule extraction (KLEx) is a refractive surgery technique that, in contrast with femtosecond laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (FS-LASIK), does not require the creation of a flap to correct refractive defects. The potential advantages of this technique are related to the absence of a flap and its complications. On the other hand, FS-LASIK is the most widely practised refractive surgery worldwide, as it offers excellent visual outcomes and is currently the gold standard of refractive surgery. The objective of this study is to compare the effectiveness and safety of KLEx versus FS-LASIK as a treatment option in patients with myopia or myopic astigmatism.

This double-masked, parallel-group, single-centre randomised clinical trial will enrol 80 eyes from adults with myopia or compound myopic astigmatism within the ranges sphere –0.50 to –12.00 D and cylinder –0.50 to –6.00 D, recruited at the Instituto de Oftalmología Conde de Valenciana, Mexico City, Mexico. Participants will be allocated to KLEx or FS-LASIK and assessed at baseline and 1 day, 1 week, 1, 3, 6 and 12 months postoperatively. The primary outcome is uncorrected visual acuity at all postoperative visits. Secondary outcomes include postoperative spherical equivalent, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), loss of ≥2 BCVA lines, the proportion of eyes within ±0.50 D of the refractive target, corneal aberrations over a 5 mm pupil, epithelial changes and adverse events. Participants and outcome assessors will be masked to the assigned surgical technique.

Participant confidentiality will be maintained with the publication of results. This study was approved by the research and ethics committee of the Instituto de Oftalmología Fundación de Asistencia Privada Conde Valenciana (CI-017-2024). The study results will be disseminated in scientific articles published in peer-reviewed journals and presented through research posters at national and international conferences.

ClinicalTrials.gov registry (NCT06477081).

Despite a lack of evidence relating to effectiveness and safety, the use of apps in the field of mental health is increasing due to their ease of use and accessibility. The aim of the EvalDepApps project is to develop and validate an assessment tool for evaluating depression management apps based on scientific evidence, expert judgement and end-user needs.

The purpose of this study was to determine the most relevant criteria for evaluating apps intended to manage depression through consensus-based assessment.

A total of 43 individuals were invited to participate in an online modified Delphi study of 51 criteria identified from the literature. In Round 1, participants rated criteria according to relevance and three levels of consensus were defined: high level when ≥80% of respondents scored the criterion at 5 or 6; medium when 60%–79% of respondents scored the criterion at 5 or 6 and low when

The response rate was 59.0% (26/43) in Round 1 and 53.4% (23/43) in Round 2. In Round 1, 24 criteria (47.1%) attained the maximum level of consensus, 20 (39.2%) the medium level and 7 (13.7%) the lowest level. In Round 2, 4 out of 20 criteria (20.0%) attained the maximum consensus. Participant comments reinforced the relevance of the selected criteria. The final list consisted of 28 criteria, the majority relating to Safety and Privacy and Clinical Effectiveness (25.0% each), followed by Usability and Functionality (17.9%).

By prioritising criteria relating to data safety and clinical effectiveness, participants in this study emphasised that the assessment of apps for depression management must take both these aspects into full consideration. Despite some limitations of the study (eg, lack of participant sociodemographic data and its implications for generalisation, not face-to-face inter-round), the results of this study will enable the EvalDepApps project to develop an assessment tool for depression management apps that incorporates the most relevant criteria.

EvalDepApps will support healthcare professionals and users in identifying safe, effective and user-friendly depression management apps.

Dyspnoea frequently leads to admissions in the Emergency Department (ED). Rapid and accurate diagnosis, specifically to distinguish acute heart failure from pneumonia and exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), is imperative to initiate appropriate therapy. This study aims to evaluate the feasibility and performance of the EMERgency ALgorithm efficiency for Dyspneic patient-UltraSound (EMERALD-US) algorithm using ultrasound (US) to diagnose the etiology of dyspnea in the ED-admitted patients.

225 patients of 50 years and above, presenting with acute non-traumatic dyspnoea, across six participating EDs will be enrolled. Patients will undergo a lung, a simplified four-chamber cardiac and a venous US. A physician, blinded to any clinical data or previous results, will execute the algorithm. The algorithm’s performance will be assessed using a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Secondary objectives include an evaluation of the protocol’s feasibility in the ED, an assessment of the concordance between the EMERALD-US algorithm diagnoses and results from other diagnostic tests (including laboratory work and imaging), as well as an evaluation of the algorithm’s performance in diagnosing other causes of dyspnoea, such as pulmonary embolism or pleural effusion, and the 30-day mortality rate.

The study protocol was approved by the French Committee for the Protection of Persons (CPP) (RCB n°2018-A02136-49). Misdiagnosis of dyspneic patients on ED admission has been associated with inappropriate treatment, prolonged hospital stays and increased mortality, particularly among elderly patients. The implementation of protocols like the EMERALD-US algorithm can help physicians in expedited decision-making and diagnosis without increasing ED visit durations.

NCT03691857.