Interventions for Age-Related Macular Degeneration: Are Practice Guidelines Based on Systematic Reviews?

Systematic review of clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of retinal vein occlusion

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

To assess the methodological quality of Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPG) for the diagnosis and management of Retinal Vein Occlusion (RVO).

METHODS

A systematic review of CPGs for the diagnosis and management of RVO was carried out with a search in databases, metasearch engines, CPG development institutions, ophthalmology associations and CPG repositories until April 2022. Search update was performed on April 2023, with no new record available. Five CPGs published in the last 10 years in English/Spanish were selected, and 5 authors evaluated them independently, using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE-II) instrument. An individual assessment of each CPG by domain (AGREE-II), an overall assessment of the guide, and its use with or without modifications were performed. Additionally, a meta-synthesis of the recommendations for the most relevant outcomes was carried out.

RESULTS

The lowest score (mean 18.8%) was for domain 5 'applicability', and the highest score (mean 62%) was for domain 4 'clarity of presentation'. The 2019 American guideline (PPP) presented the best score (40.4%) in domain 3 'rigour of development'. When evaluating the overall quality of the CPGs analysed, all CPGs could be recommended with modifications. In the meta-synthesis, anti-VEGF therapy is the first-choice therapy for macular oedema associated with RVO, but there is no clear recommendation about the type of anti-VEGF therapy to choose. Recommendations for diagnosis and follow-up are similar among the CPGs appraised.

CONCLUSION

Most CPGs for the diagnosis and management of RVO have a low methodological quality assessed according to the AGREE-II. PPP has the higher score in the domain 'rigour of development'. Among the CPGs appraised, there is no clear recommendation on the type of anti-VEGF therapy to choose.

Assessment of vision-related quality of life and depression in patients with age-related macular degeneration

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effect of age-related macular degeneration (AMD) on vision-related quality of life (VRQOL) and depression levels.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study included 143 patients who are being followed up with a diagnosis of AMD. The Turkish versions of the National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire-25 (NEI VFQ-25) and Geriatric Depression Scale-15 (GDS-15) were directed to the patients. The questionnaire results were analyzed based on the severity, treatment procedures for AMD, and sociodemographic characteristics of patients.

RESULTS

The subscale scores obtained from the NEI VFQ-25 ranged from 47.54 for "near activities" to 84.02 for "color vision." Of the patients, 59.4% (85/143) were compatible with depression according to the GDS-15 questionnaire. There was no significant difference in the NEI VFQ-25 subscale scores between the gender groups (P > 0.05), whereas females were statistically significantly more depressive than males (P < 0.05). There were no significant differences between the injection (anti-vascular endothelial growth factors [anti-VEGF]) group and the non-injection group in terms of subscales of the NEI VFQ-25 questionnaire (P > 0.05). The depression ratio in the non-injected group was statistically significantly higher (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

According to the present study, the association between depression and AMD is a fact that should be highlighted. Patients with depression had lower scores on the quality of life (QOL) test. Previous intravitreal injection did not affect NEI VFQ-25 scores. Female patients with AMD had higher rates of depression and lower visual acuity levels.

Systematic analysis of levels of evidence supporting American Academy of Ophthalmology Preferred Practice Pattern guidelines, 2012-2021

BACKGROUND

Despite the increased emphasis on evidence-based medicine, the current state of evidence behind ophthalmology clinical practice guidelines is unknown. The purpose of this systematic analysis was to understand the levels of evidence (LOE) supporting American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO) Preferred Practice Pattern (PPP) guidelines, assess changes over time, and compare LOE across ophthalmology subspecialties.

METHODS

All current PPP guidelines and their immediate predecessors were comprehensively reviewed to identify all recommendations with LOE provided (I [randomized controlled trials], II [case-control or cohort studies], and III [nonanalytic studies]).

RESULTS

Twenty-three out of 24 current PPPs had a prior edition. Among the PPPs with a prior edition, the number of recommendations with LOE decreased from 1254 in prior PPPs to 94 in current PPPs. The number of recommendations with LOE I decreased from 114 to 83, LOE II decreased from 147 to 2, and LOE III decreased from 993 to 9. However, the proportion of LOE I recommendations increased from 9 to 88%, driven by a disproportionate decrease in reporting of evidence lower than LOE I. Subgroup analysis by subspecialty showed similar trends (LOE I recommendations in prior PPPs vs current PPPs: retina: 57 [12%] vs 19 [100%]; cornea: 33 [5%] vs 24 [100%]; glaucoma: 9 [23%] vs 17 [100%]; cataract: 13 [17%] vs 18 [100%]).

CONCLUSIONS

Trends in LOE reporting in PPP guidelines indicate an increasing emphasis on evidence from randomized controlled trials from 2012 to 2021. The decline in the number of recommendations with LOE reported suggests an area for improvement in future guidelines as the presence of LOE is crucial to facilitate interpretation of clinical practice guidelines.

Harms in Systematic Reviews Paper 2: Methods used to assess harms are neglected in systematic reviews of gabapentin

OBJECTIVE

We compared methods used with current recommendations for synthesizing harms in systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRMAs) of gabapentin.

STUDY DESIGN & SETTING

We followed recommended systematic review practices. We selected reliable SRMAs of gabapentin (i.e., met a pre-defined list of methodological criteria) that assessed at least one harm. We extracted and compared methods in four areas: pre-specification, searching, analysis, and reporting. Whereas our focus in this paper is on the methods used, Part 2 examines the results for harms across reviews.

RESULTS

We screened 4320 records and identified 157 SRMAs of gabapentin, 70 of which were reliable. Most reliable reviews (51/70; 73%) reported following a general guideline for SRMA conduct or reporting, but none reported following recommendations specifically for synthesizing harms. Across all domains assessed, review methods were designed to address questions of benefit and rarely included the additional methods that are recommended for evaluating harms.

CONCLUSION

Approaches to assessing harms in SRMAs we examined are tokenistic and unlikely to produce valid summaries of harms to guide decisions. A paradigm shift is needed. At a minimal, reviewers should describe any limitations to their assessment of harms and provide clearer descriptions of methods for synthesizing harms.

Effectiveness of Current Treatments for Wet Age-Related Macular Degeneration in Japan: A Systematic Review and Pooled Data Analysis

Purpose

We conducted a systematic review to investigate the effectiveness of clinical treatments for wet age-related macular degeneration (wAMD) in Japanese patients in the decade since anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapies were introduced.

Methods

PubMed was searched for articles published in English between 1 January 2008 and 30 September 2018 using a multistring search strategy. Reviews were scanned for additional relevant studies and select gray literature was evaluated. Mean and/or median for the logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) visual acuity (VA), central retinal thickness (CRT), and the number of injections after 12 months of treatment were calculated using extracted data. Data were stratified by disease type and treatment modality.

Results

Of 335 studies identified, 94 were selected for data extraction (147 treatment arms; typical AMD, n = 25; polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy [PCV], n = 85). Mean (median) logMAR VA was 0.44 (0.32) for typical AMD and 0.34 (0.31) for PCV; the respective mean number of anti-VEGF injections was 5.6 and 4.6. The mean CRT was approximately 220 μm for both groups. For typical AMD, anti-VEGF monotherapy resulted in better VA outcomes than photodynamic therapy (PDT) alone. For PCV, anti-VEGF monotherapy or anti-VEGF plus PDT combination therapy resulted in better VA and CRT outcomes than PDT monotherapy. Combination therapy required fewer injections than anti-VEGF monotherapy (PCV, 3.2 versus 5.3).

Conclusion

wAMD treatment has advanced dramatically in the years since anti-VEGF drugs were introduced in Japan. Discrete patient populations may benefit from differing management regimens, including the fewer injections required with combination therapy.

What Do We Really Know about the Effectiveness of Glaucoma Interventions?: An Overview of Systematic Reviews

PURPOSE

To identify systematic reviews of interventions for glaucoma conditions and to assess their reliability, thereby generating a list of potentially reliable reviews for updating glaucoma practice guidelines.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

PARTICIPANTS

Systematic reviews of interventions for glaucoma conditions.

METHODS

We used a database of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in vision research and eye care maintained by the Cochrane Eyes and Vision United States Satellite. We examined all Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions for glaucoma conditions published before August 7, 2019, and all non-Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions for glaucoma conditions published between January 1, 2014, and August 7, 2019.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

We assessed eligible reviews for reliability, extracted characteristics, and summarized key findings from reviews classified as reliable.

RESULTS

Of the 4451 systematic reviews in eyes and vision identified, 129 met our eligibility criteria and were assessed for reliability. Of these, we classified 49 (38%) as reliable. We found open-angle glaucoma (22/49) to be the condition with the most reviews and medical management (17/49) and intraocular pressure (IOP; 43/49) to be the most common interventions and outcomes studied. Most reviews found a high degree of uncertainty in the evidence, which hinders the possibility of making strong recommendations in guidelines. These reviews found high-certainty evidence about a few topics: reducing IOP helps to prevent glaucoma and its progression, prostaglandin analogs are the most effective medical treatment for lowering IOP, laser trabeculoplasty is as effective as medical treatment as a first-line therapy in controlling IOP, the use of IOP-lowering medications in the perioperative or postoperative periods to accompany laser (e.g., trabeculoplasty) reduces the risk of postoperative IOP spikes, conventional surgery (i.e., trabeculectomy) is more effective than medications in reducing IOP, and antimetabolites and β-radiation improve IOP control after trabeculectomy. The evidence is weak regarding the effectiveness of minimally invasive glaucoma surgeries.

CONCLUSIONS

Most systematic reviews evaluating interventions for glaucoma are of poor reliability. Even among those that may be considered reliable, important limitations exist in the value of information because of the uncertainty of the evidence as well as small and sometimes unimportant clinical differences between interventions.

Evaluation of Systematic Reviews of Interventions for Retina and Vitreous Conditions

Importance

Patient care and clinical practice guidelines should be informed by evidence from reliable systematic reviews. The reliability of systematic reviews related to forthcoming guidelines for retina and vitreous conditions is unknown.

Objectives

To summarize the reliability of systematic reviews on interventions for 7 retina and vitreous conditions, describe characteristics of reliable and unreliable systematic reviews, and examine the primary area in which they appeared to be lacking.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A cross-sectional study of systematic reviews was conducted. Systematic reviews of interventions for retina- and vitreous-related conditions in a database maintained by the Cochrane Eyes and Vision United States Satellite were identified. Databases that the reviewers searched, whether any date or language restrictions were applied, and bibliographic information, such as year and journal of publication, were documented. The initial search was conducted in March 2007, and the final update was performed in July 2018. The conditions of interest were age-related macular degeneration; diabetic retinopathy; idiopathic epiretinal membrane and vitreomacular traction; idiopathic macular hole; posterior vitreous detachment, retinal breaks, and lattice degeneration; retinal and ophthalmic artery occlusions; and retinal vein occlusions. The reliability of each review was evaluated using prespecified criteria. Data were extracted by 2 research assistants working independently, with disagreements resolved through discussion or by 1 research assistant with verification by a senior team member.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Proportion of reviews that meet all of the following criteria: (1) defined eligibility criteria for study selection, (2) described conducting a comprehensive literature search, (3) reported assessing risk of bias in included studies, (4) described using appropriate methods for any meta-analysis performed, and (5) provided conclusions consistent with review findings.

Results

A total of 327 systematic reviews that addressed retina and vitreous conditions were identified; of these, 131 reviews (40.1%) were classified as reliable and 196 reviews (59.9%) were classified as not reliable. At least 1 reliable review was found for each of the 7 retina and vitreous conditions. The most common reason that a review was classified as not reliable was lack of evidence that a comprehensive literature search for relevant studies had been conducted (149 of 196 reviews [76.0%]).

Conclusion and Relevance

The findings of this study suggest that most systematic reviews that addressed interventions for retina and vitreous conditions were not reliable. Systematic review teams and guideline developers should work with information professionals who can help navigate sophisticated and varied syntaxes required to search different resources.

Evaluating the quality of evidence for gaming disorder: A summary of systematic reviews of associations between gaming disorder and depression or anxiety

Gaming disorder has been described as an urgent public health problem and has garnered many systematic reviews of its associations with other health conditions. However, review methodology can contribute to bias in the conclusions, leading to research, policy, and patient care that are not truly evidence-based. This study followed a pre-registered protocol (PROSPERO 2018 CRD42018090651) with the objective of identifying reliable and methodologically-rigorous systematic reviews that examine the associations between gaming disorder and depression or anxiety in any population. We searched PubMed and PsycInfo for published systematic reviews and the gray literature for unpublished systematic reviews as of June 24, 2020. Reviews were classified as reliable according to several quality criteria, such as whether they conducted a risk of bias assessment of studies and whether they clearly described how outcomes from each study were selected. We assessed possible selective outcome reporting among the reviews. Seven reviews that included a total of 196 studies met inclusion criteria. The overall number of participants was not calculable because not all reviews reported these data. All reviews specified eligibility criteria for studies, but not for outcomes within studies. Only one review assessed risk of bias. Evidence of selective outcome reporting was found in all reviews-only one review incorporated any of the null findings from studies it included. Thus, none were classified as reliable according to prespecified quality criteria. Systematic reviews related to gaming disorder do not meet methodological standards. As clinical and policy decisions are heavily reliant on reliable, accurate, and unbiased evidence synthesis; researchers, clinicians, and policymakers should consider the implications of selective outcome reporting. Limitations of the current summary include using counts of associations and restricting to systematic reviews published in English. Systematic reviewers should follow established guidelines for review conduct and transparent reporting to ensure evidence about technology use disorders is reliable.

Reliability of the Evidence Addressing Treatment of Corneal Diseases: A Summary of Systematic Reviews

Importance

Patient care should be informed by clinical practice guidelines, which in turn should be informed by evidence from reliable systematic reviews. The American Academy of Ophthalmology is updating its Preferred Practice Patterns (PPPs) for the management of the following 6 corneal diseases: bacterial keratitis, blepharitis, conjunctivitis, corneal ectasia, corneal edema and opacification, and dry eye syndrome.

Objective

To summarize the reliability of the existing systematic reviews addressing interventions for corneal diseases.

Data Source

The Cochrane Eyes and Vision US Satellite database.

Study Selection

In this study of published systematic reviews from 1997 to 2017 (median, 2014), the Cochrane Eyes and Vision US Satellite database was searched for systematic reviews evaluating interventions for the management of any corneal disease, combining eyes and vision keywords and controlled vocabulary terms with a validated search filter.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

The study classified systematic reviews as reliable when each of the following 5 criteria were met: the systematic review specified eligibility criteria for inclusion of studies, conducted a comprehensive literature search for studies, assessed risk of bias of the individual included studies, used appropriate methods for quantitative syntheses (meta-analysis) (only assessed if meta-analysis was performed), and had conclusions that were supported by the results of the systematic review. They were classified as unreliable if at least 1 criterion was not met.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The proportion of systematic reviews that were reliable and the reasons for unreliability.

Results

This study identified 98 systematic reviews that addressed interventions for 15 corneal diseases. Thirty-three of 98 systematic reviews (34%) were classified as unreliable. The most frequent reasons for unreliability were that the systematic review did not conduct a comprehensive literature search for studies (22 of 33 [67%]), did not assess risk of bias of the individual included studies (13 of 33 [39%]), and did not use appropriate methods for quantitative syntheses (meta-analysis) (12 of 17 systematic reviews that conducted a quantitative synthesis [71%]). Sixty-five of 98 systematic reviews (66%) were classified as reliable. Forty-two of the 65 reliable systematic reviews (65%) addressed corneal diseases relevant to the 2018 American Academy of Ophthalmology PPPs; 33 of these 42 systematic reviews (79%) are cited in the 2018 PPPs.

Conclusions and Relevance

One in 3 systematic reviews addressing interventions for corneal diseases are unreliable and thus were not used to inform PPP recommendations. Careful adherence by systematic reviewers and journal editors to well-established best practices regarding systematic review conduct and reporting might help make future systematic reviews in eyes and vision more reliable.

Evaluation of Clinical Questions and Patient-Important Outcomes Associated With the Treatment of Age-Related Macular Degeneration

Importance

Identifying and prioritizing unanswered clinical questions may help to best allocate limited resources for research associated with the treatment of age-related macular degeneration (AMD).

Objective

To identify and prioritize clinical questions and outcomes for research associated with the treatment of AMD through engagement with professional and patient stakeholders.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Multiple cross-sectional survey questions were used in a modified Delphi process for panel members of US and international organizations, the American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO) Retina/Vitreous Panel (n=7), health care professionals from the American Society of Retinal Specialists (ASRS) (n=90), Atlantic Coast Retina Conference (ACRC) and Macula 2017 meeting (n=34); and patients from MD (Macular Degeneration) Support (n=46). Data were collected from January 20, 2015, to January 9, 2017.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The prioritizing of clinical questions and patient-important outcomes for AMD.

Results

Seventy clinical questions were derived from the AAO Preferred Practice Patterns for AMD and suggestions by the AAO Retina/Vitreous Panel. The AAO Retina/Vitreous Panel assessed all 70 clinical questions and rated 17 of 70 questions (24%) as highly important. Health care professionals assessed the 17 highly important clinical questions and rated 12 of 17 questions (71%) as high priority for research to answer; 9 of 12 high-priority clinical questions were associated with aspects of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents. Patients assessed the 17 highly important clinical questions and rated all as high priority. Additionally, patients identified 6 of 33 outcomes (18%) as most important to them (choroidal neovascularization, development of advanced AMD, retinal hemorrhage, gain of vision, slowing vision loss, and serious ocular events).

Conclusions and Relevance

Input from 4 stakeholder groups suggests good agreement on which 12 priority clinical questions can be used to underpin research related to the treatment of AMD. The 6 most important outcomes identified by patients were balanced between intended effects of AMD treatment (eg, slowing vision loss) and adverse events. Consideration of these patient-important outcomes may help to guide clinical care and future areas of research.

Identification and Description of Reliable Evidence for 2016 American Academy of Ophthalmology Preferred Practice Pattern Guidelines for Cataract in the Adult Eye

Importance

Trustworthy clinical practice guidelines require reliable systematic reviews of the evidence to support recommendations. Since 2016, the American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO) has partnered with Cochrane Eyes and Vision US Satellite to update their guidelines, the Preferred Practice Patterns (PPP).

Objective

To describe experiences and findings related to identifying reliable systematic reviews that support topics likely to be addressed in the 2016 update of the 2011 AAO PPP guidelines on cataract in the adult eye.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Cross-sectional study. Systematic reviews on the management of cataract were searched for in an established database. Each relevant systematic review was mapped to 1 or more of the 24 management categories listed under the Management section of the table of contents of the 2011 AAO PPP guidelines. Data were extracted to determine the reliability of each systematic review using prespecified criteria, and the reliable systematic reviews were examined to find whether they were referenced in the 2016 AAO PPP guidelines. For comparison, we assessed whether the reliable systematic reviews published before February 2010 the last search date of the 2011 AAO PPP guidelines were referenced in the 2011 AAO PPP guidelines. Cochrane Eyes and Vision US Satellite did not provide systematic reviews to the AAO during the development of the 2011 AAO PPP guidelines.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Systematic review reliability was defined by reporting eligibility criteria, performing a comprehensive literature search, assessing methodologic quality of included studies, using appropriate methods for meta-analysis, and basing conclusions on review findings.

Results

From 99 systematic reviews on management of cataract, 46 (46%) were classified as reliable. No evidence that a comprehensive search had been conducted was the most common reason a review was classified as unreliable. All 46 reliable systematic reviews were cited in the 2016 AAO PPP guidelines, and 8 of 15 available reliable reviews (53%) were cited in the 2011 PPP guidelines.

Conclusions and Relevance

The partnership between Cochrane Eyes and Vision US Satellite and the AAO provides the AAO access to an evidence base of relevant and reliable systematic reviews, thereby supporting robust and efficient clinical practice guidelines development to improve the quality of eye care.

A Critical Appraisal of National and International Clinical Practice Guidelines Reporting Nutritional Recommendations for Age-Related Macular Degeneration: Are Recommendations Evidence-Based?

: Eye care professionals should have access to high quality clinical practice guidelines that ideally are underpinned by evidence from robust systematic reviews of relevant research. The aim of this study was to identify clinical guidelines with recommendations pertaining to dietary modification and/or nutritional supplementation for age-related macular degeneration (AMD), and to evaluate the overall quality of the guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument. We also mapped recommendations to existing systematic review evidence. A comprehensive search was undertaken using bibliographic databases and other electronic resources for eligible guidelines. Quality appraisal was undertaken to generate scores for each of the six AGREE II domains, and mapping of extracted nutritional recommendations was performed for systematic reviews published up to March 2017. We identified 13 national and international guidelines, developed or updated between 2004 and 2019. These varied substantially in quality. The lowest scoring AGREE II domains were for 'Rigour of Development', 'Applicability' (which measures implementation strategies to improve uptake of recommendations), and 'Editorial Independence'. Only four guidelines used evidence from systematic reviews to support their nutritional recommendations. In conclusion, there is significant scope for improving current Clinical Practice Guidelines for AMD, and guideline developers should use evidence from existing high quality systematic reviews to inform clinical recommendations.

Impact of methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase C677T polymorphism on the efficacy of photodynamic therapy in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration

The most severe visual impairments due to age-related macular degeneration (AMD) are frequently caused by the occurrence of choroidal neovascularization (CNV). Although photodynamic therapy with verteporfin (PDT-V) is currently a second-line treatment for neovascular AMD, it can be conveniently combined with drugs acting against vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) to reduce the healthcare burden associated with the growing necessity of anti-VEGF intravitreal re-injection. Because the common 677 C > T polymorphism of the methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase gene (MTHFR-C677T; rs1801133) has been described as predictor of satisfactory short-term responsiveness of AMD-related CNV to PDT-V, we retrospectively examined the outcomes of 371 Caucasian patients treated with standardized, pro-re-nata, photodynamic regimen for 24 months. Responder (R) and non-responder (NR) patients were distinguished on the basis of the total number of scheduled PDT-V (TN-PDT-V) and change of best-corrected visual acuity (∆-BCVA). The risk for both TN-PDT-V and ∆-BCVA to pass from R to NR group was strongly correlated with CT and TT genotypes of MTHFR-C677T variant resulting, respectively, in odd ratios of 0.19 [95% CI, 0.12-0.32] and 0.09 [95% CI, 0.04-0.21] (P < 0.001), and odd ratios of 0.24 [95% CI, 0.15-0.39] and 0.03 [95% CI, 0.01-0.11] (P < 0.001). These pharmacogenetic findings indicate a rational basis to optimize the future clinical application of PDT-V during the combined treatments of AMD-related CNV, highlighting the role of thrombophilia to be aware of the efficacy profile of photodynamic therapy.

Cochrane Eyes and Vision: a perspective introducing Cochrane Corner in Eye

In 1972, Archie Cochrane wrote "It is surely a great criticism of our profession that we have not organised a critical summary, by specialty or subspecialty, adapted periodically, of all relevant randomised controlled trials". The Cochrane Collaboration arose in response to Archie Cochrane's challenge. Cochrane Eyes and Vision aims to prepare and promote access to systematic reviews of interventions for preventing or treating eye conditions and/or visual impairment, and helping people adjust to visual impairment or blindness. To identify all relevant randomised controlled trials, Cochrane Eyes and Vision has a team of information specialists who develop search strategies to identify studies for inclusion in Cochrane reviews. Since 1997 we have published 266 protocols, 193 new reviews and 158 updated reviews. The majority of these are reviews of intervention effectiveness; three reviews are diagnostic test accuracy reviews. Overall 18% of reviews contain no trials, highlighting a potential evidence gap. We provide training, education and guidance to systematic review authors and work with clinical and patient partners to prioritise and disseminate reviews. In addition, Cochrane Eyes and Vision US satellite carries out critical methodologic research addressing topics relevant to producing high-quality reviews. We are partnering with the journal Eye to publish commentaries on selected Cochrane systematic review findings. This partnership will allow us to make high-quality evidence available to ophthalmologists and other practitioners, researchers, policy makers and patients.

The Impact of Age-Related Macular Degeneration on Quality of Life and Its Association With Demographic Data: Results From the NEI VFQ-25 Questionnaire in a Norwegian Population

Objective: To describe vision-related quality of life (VRQoL) in a Norwegian population of patients with newly diagnosed neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD), and to evaluate the association with demographic data of age, gender, and civil status (married, cohabitants/unmarried, not cohabitants). Method: The Norwegian version of the National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire-25 (NEI VFQ-25) questionnaire was administered to 145 patients recently diagnosed with nAMD. We used descriptive statistics and bivariate analysis to determine the distribution of demographic parameters and a possible association between demographic parameters and NEI VFQ-25 scores. Spearman correlation was employed to analyze the NEI VFQ-25 items and subscales scores. Results: Mean (SD) VFQ-25 total score was 78.5 (14.7). The scores per subscales varied from 64.7 to 89.7. No significant difference was revealed between demographic parameters and the NEI VFQ-25 items, except for one item (being with others) when comparing paired and nonpaired participants. Conclusion: In a Norwegian population with newly diagnosed nAMD, VRQoL is reported at a high baseline level. This is an important information for the health care personnel when discussing expectations during treatment with the patient. Age, gender, and civil status did not affect VRQoL.

The quality of systematic reviews about interventions for refractive error can be improved: a review of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Systematic reviews should inform American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO) Preferred Practice Pattern® (PPP) guidelines. The quality of systematic reviews related to the forthcoming Preferred Practice Pattern® guideline (PPP) Refractive Errors & Refractive Surgery is unknown. We sought to identify reliable systematic reviews to assist the AAO Refractive Errors & Refractive Surgery PPP.

METHODS

Systematic reviews were eligible if they evaluated the effectiveness or safety of interventions included in the 2012 PPP Refractive Errors & Refractive Surgery. To identify potentially eligible systematic reviews, we searched the Cochrane Eyes and Vision United States Satellite database of systematic reviews. Two authors identified eligible reviews and abstracted information about the characteristics and quality of the reviews independently using the Systematic Review Data Repository. We classified systematic reviews as "reliable" when they (1) defined criteria for the selection of studies, (2) conducted comprehensive literature searches for eligible studies, (3) assessed the methodological quality (risk of bias) of the included studies, (4) used appropriate methods for meta-analyses (which we assessed only when meta-analyses were reported), (5) presented conclusions that were supported by the evidence provided in the review.

RESULTS

We identified 124 systematic reviews related to refractive error; 39 met our eligibility criteria, of which we classified 11 to be reliable. Systematic reviews classified as unreliable did not define the criteria for selecting studies (5; 13%), did not assess methodological rigor (10; 26%), did not conduct comprehensive searches (17; 44%), or used inappropriate quantitative methods (3; 8%). The 11 reliable reviews were published between 2002 and 2016. They included 0 to 23 studies (median = 9) and analyzed 0 to 4696 participants (median = 666). Seven reliable reviews (64%) assessed surgical interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

Most systematic reviews of interventions for refractive error are low methodological quality. Following widely accepted guidance, such as Cochrane or Institute of Medicine standards for conducting systematic reviews, would contribute to improved patient care and inform future research.

Setting Priorities for Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research and Identifying Evidence Gaps

PURPOSE

Prioritizing comparative effectiveness research may contribute to obtaining answers that clinicians perceive they need and may minimize research that could be considered wasteful. Our objective was to identify evidence gaps and set priorities for new systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials for managing diabetic retinopathy (DR), including diabetic macular edema (DME).

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

PARTICIPANTS

Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network (DRCR.net) investigators.

METHODS

We provided recommendations from the American Academy of Ophthalmology's 2012 Preferred Practice Patterns for Diabetic Retinopathy as 91 answerable clinical research questions about intervention effectiveness to 410 DRCR.net investigators to rate each question's importance from 0 (not important) to 10 (very important) using a 2-round Delphi survey and to suggest additional questions. We considered questions as high priority if at least 75% of respondents to both rounds assigned an importance rating of 5 or more in round 2. We also extracted outcome measures relevant to DR and asked respondents to identify those that must be measured in all studies. We mapped Cochrane reviews published up to March 2016 to high-priority clinical research questions.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Ranking of importance of each clinical question.

RESULTS

Thirty-two individuals completed rounds 1 and 2 and suggested 15 questions. Among the final list of 106 clinical research questions, 22 questions met our definition of high priority: 9 of 22 concerned the effectiveness of anti-VEGF therapy, and 13 of 22 focused on how often patients should be followed up (re-examination) and treatment effectiveness in patients with specific characteristics (e.g., DME). Outcomes that 75% or more of respondents marked as "must be measured in all studies" included visual acuity and visual loss, death of participants, and intraocular pressure. Only 1 prioritized question was associated with conclusive evidence from a Cochrane systematic review.

CONCLUSIONS

A limited response rate among DRCR.net members identified 22 comparative effectiveness research questions as high priority for the management of DR, including DME, but few were associated with Cochrane reviews. These results support the need of systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials to address evidence gaps.