The Sight Loss and Vision Priority Setting Partnership (SLV-PSP): overview and results of the research prioritisation survey process

The UK clinical eye research strategy: refreshing research priorities for clinical eye research in the UK

OBJECTIVES

To validate and update the 2013 James Lind Alliance (JLA) Sight Loss and Vision Priority Setting Partnership (PSP)'s research priorities for Ophthalmology, as part of the UK Clinical Eye Research Strategy.

METHODS

Twelve ophthalmology research themes were identified from the JLA report. They were allocated to five Clinical Study Groups of diverse stakeholders who reviewed the top 10 research priorities for each theme. Using an online survey (April 2021-February 2023), respondents were invited to complete one or more of nine subspecialty surveys. Respondents indicated which of the research questions they considered important and subsequently ranked them.

RESULTS

In total, 2240 people responded to the survey (mean age, 59.3 years), from across the UK. 68.1% were female. 68.2% were patients, 22.3% healthcare professionals or vision researchers, 7.1% carers, and 2.1% were charity support workers. Highest ranked questions by subspecialty: Cataract (prevention), Cornea (improving microbial keratitis treatment), Optometric (impact of integration of ophthalmic primary and secondary care via community optometric care pathways), Refractive (factors influencing development and/or progression of refractive error), Childhood onset (improving early detection of visual disorders), Glaucoma (effective and improved treatments), Neuro-ophthalmology (improvements in prevention, diagnosis and treatment of neurodegeneration affecting vision), Retina (improving prevention, diagnosis and treatment of dry age-related macular degeneration), Uveitis (effective treatments for ocular and orbital inflammatory diseases).

CONCLUSIONS

A decade after the initial PSP, the results refocus the most important research questions for each subspecialty, and prime targeted research proposals within Ophthalmology, a chronically underfunded specialty given the substantial burden of disability caused by eye disease.

Comparing Research Priority-Setting Partnerships for Older Adults Across International Health Care Systems: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

Priority setting partnerships (PSPs) attempt to shape the research agenda to address the needs of local populations of interest. We reviewed the PSPs for older adults, with a focus on exemplar health care systems: United Kingdom (UK; publicly funded), United States (private health insurance-based), South Korea (national health insurance-based), and Africa (out-of-pocket).

DESIGN

Systematic review.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

We searched databases and sources (January 2011-October 202l; updated in February 2023) for PSPs of older adults' health care.

METHODS

Based on the British geriatric medicine curriculum, we extracted and categorized the PSP topics by areas and the research priorities by themes, and generated evidence maps depicting and comparing the research gaps across the systems. We evaluated PSP quality using the Nine Common Themes of Good Clinical Practice.

RESULTS

We included 32 PSPs (United Kingdom: n = 25; United States: n = 7; South Korea and Africa: n = 0) and identified priorities regarding 27 conditions or service arrangements in the United Kingdom and 9 in the United States (predominantly in neurology/psychiatry). The UK priorities focused on treatments and interventions whereas the US on prognostic/predictive factors. There were notable research gaps within the existing PSPs, including common geriatric conditions like continence and frailty. The PSP quality evaluation revealed issues around lacking inclusion of ethnic minorities.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Research priorities for older adult health care vary internationally, but certain health care systems/countries have no available PSPs. Where PSPs are available, fundamental aspects of geriatric medicine have not been included. Future researchers should conduct prioritizations in different countries, focus on core geriatric syndromes, and ensure the inclusion of all relevant stakeholder groups.

UNICORNS: Uveitis in childhood prospective national cohort study protocol

Background: Childhood uveitis is a rare inflammatory eye disease which is typically chronic, relapsing-remitting in nature, with an uncertain aetiology (idiopathic). Visual loss occurs due to structural damage caused by uncontrolled inflammation. Understanding of the determinants of long term outcome is lacking, including the predictors of therapeutic response or how to define disease control. Aims: To describe disease natural history and outcomes amongst a nationally representative group of children with non-infectious uveitis, describe the impact of disease course on quality of life for both child and family, and identify determinants of adverse visual, structural and developmental outcomes. Methods: UNICORNS is a prospective longitudinal multicentre cohort study of children newly diagnosed with uveitis about whom a core minimum clinical dataset will be collected systematically. Participants and their families will also complete patient-reported outcome measures annually from recruitment. The association of patient (child- and treatment- dependent) characteristics with outcome will be investigated using logistic and ordinal regression models which incorporate adjustment for within-child correspondence between eyes for those with bilateral disease and repeated outcomes measurement. Discussion: Through this population based, prospective longitudinal study of childhood uveitis, we will describe the characteristics of childhood onset disease. Early (1-2 years following diagnosis) outcomes will be described in the first instance, and through the creation of a national inception cohort, longer term studies will be enabled of outcome for affected children and families.

Keratoconus International Consortium (KIC)- advancing keratoconus research

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The Keratoconus International Consortium (KIC) will allow better understanding of keratoconus.

BACKGROUND

Keratoconus is a disorder characterised by corneal elevation and thinning, leading to reduced vision. The current gaps in understanding of this disease will be discussed and the need for a multi-pronged and multi-centre engagement to enhance our understanding of keratoconus will be highlighted.

DESIGN

KIC has been established to address the gaps in our understanding of keratoconus with the aim of collecting baseline as well as longitudinal data on several fields.

PARTICIPANTS

Keratoconus and control (no corneal condition) subjects from different sites globally will be recruited in the study.

METHODS

KIC collects data using an online, secure database, which enables standardised data collection at member sites. Data fields collected include medical history, clinical features, quality of life and economic burden questionnaires and possible genetic sample collection from patients of different ethnicities across different geographical locations.

RESULTS

There are currently 40 Australian and international clinics or hospital departments who have joined the KIC. Baseline data has so far been collected on 1130 keratoconus patients and indicates a median age of 29.70 years with 61% being male. A total of 15.3% report a positive family history of keratoconus and 57.7% self-report a history of frequent eye rubbing.

CONCLUSION

The strength of this consortium is its international, collaborative design and use of a common data collection tool. Inclusion and analyses of cross-sectional and longitudinal data will help answer many questions that remain in keratoconus, including factors affecting progression and treatment outcomes.

Approaches to prioritising research for clinical trial networks: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Prioritisation of clinical trials ensures that the research conducted meets the needs of stakeholders, makes the best use of resources and avoids duplication. The aim of this review was to identify and critically appraise approaches to research prioritisation applicable to clinical trials, to inform best practice guidelines for clinical trial networks and funders.

METHODS

A scoping review of English-language published literature and research organisation websites (January 2000 to January 2020) was undertaken to identify primary studies, approaches and criteria for research prioritisation. Data were extracted and tabulated, and a narrative synthesis was employed.

RESULTS

Seventy-eight primary studies and 18 websites were included. The majority of research prioritisation occurred in oncology and neurology disciplines. The main reasons for prioritisation were to address a knowledge gap (51 of 78 studies [65%]) and to define patient-important topics (28 studies, [35%]). In addition, research organisations prioritised in order to support their institution's mission, invest strategically, and identify best return on investment. Fifty-seven of 78 (73%) studies used interpretative prioritisation approaches (including Delphi surveys, James Lind Alliance and consensus workshops); six studies used quantitative approaches (8%) such as prospective payback or value of information (VOI) analyses; and 14 studies used blended approaches (18%) such as nominal group technique and Child Health Nutritional Research Initiative. Main criteria for prioritisation included relevance, appropriateness, significance, feasibility and cost-effectiveness.

CONCLUSION

Current research prioritisation approaches for groups conducting and funding clinical trials are largely interpretative. There is an opportunity to improve the transparency of prioritisation through the inclusion of quantitative approaches.

Research priority setting related to older adults: a scoping review to inform the Cochrane-Campbell Global Ageing Partnership work programme

OBJECTIVE

To explore and map the findings of prior research priority-setting initiatives related to improving the health and well-being of older adults.

DESIGN

Scoping review.

DATA SOURCES

Searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, AgeLine, CINAHL and PsycINFO databases from January 2014 to 26 April 2021, and the James Lind Alliance top 10 priorities.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included primary studies reporting research priorities gathered from stakeholders that focused on ageing or the health of older adults (≥60 years). There were no restrictions by setting, but language was limited to English and French.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

We used a modified Reporting Guideline for Priority Setting of Health Research (REPRISE) guideline to assess the transparency of the reported methods. Population-intervention-control-outcome (PICO) priorities were categorised according to their associated International Classification of Health Interventions (ICHI) and International Classification of Functioning (ICF) outcomes. Broad research topics were categorised thematically.

RESULTS

Sixty-four studies met our inclusion criteria. The studies gathered opinions from various stakeholder groups, including clinicians (n=56 studies) and older adults (n=35), and caregivers (n=24), with 75% of the initiatives involving multiple groups. None of the included priority-setting initiatives reported gathering opinions from stakeholders located in low-income or middle-income countries. Of the priorities extracted, 272 were identified as broad research topics, while 217 were identified as PICO priorities. PICO priorities that involved clinical outcomes (n=165 priorities) and interventions concerning health-related behaviours (n=59) were identified most often. Broad research topics on health services and systems were identified most often (n=60). Across all these included studies, the reporting of six REPRISE elements was deemed to be critically low.

CONCLUSION

Future priority setting initiatives should focus on documenting a more detailed methodology with all initiatives eliciting opinions from caregivers and older adults to ensure priorities reflect the opinions of all key stakeholder groups.

Evaluating patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for clinical trials and clinical practice in adult patients with uveitis or scleritis: a systematic review

Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) capture impact of disease and treatment on quality of life, and have an emerging role in clinical trial outcome measurement. This study included a systematic review and quality appraisal of PROMs developed or validated for use in adults with uveitis or scleritis. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and grey literature sources, to 5 November 2021. We used established quality criteria to grade each PROM instrument in multiple domains from A (high quality) to C (low quality), and assessed content development, validity, reliability and responsiveness. For instruments developed using classic test theory-based psychometric approaches, we assessed acceptability, item targeting and internal consistency. For instruments developed using Item Response Theory (IRT) (e.g. Rasch analysis), we assessed response categories, dimensionality, measurement precision, item fit statistics, differential item functioning and targeting. We identified and appraised four instruments applicable to certain uveitis types, but none for scleritis. Specifically, the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire-25 (NEI-VFQ), a 3-part PROM for Birdshot retinochoroiditis (Birdshot Disease & Medication Symptoms Questionnaire [BD&MSQ], the quality of life (QoL) impact of Birdshot Chorioretinopathy [QoL BCR], and the QoL impact of BCR medication [QoL Meds], the Kings Sarcoidosis Questionnaire (KSQ), and a PROM for cytomegalovirus retinitis. These instruments had limited coverage for these heterogeneous conditions, with a focus on very rare subtypes. Psychometric appraisal revealed considerable variability between instruments, limited content development, and only one developed using Item Response Theory. In conclusion, there are few validated PROMs for patients with uveitis and none for scleritis, and existing instruments have suboptimal psychometric performance. We articulate why we do not recommend their inclusion as clinical trial outcome measures for drug licensing purposes, and highlight an unmet need for PROMs applicable to uveitis and scleritis.

Long-term ocular and visual outcomes following symptomatic and asymptomatic congenital CMV infection: a systematic review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is one of the most common congenitally acquired infections worldwide. Visual impairment is a common outcome for symptomatic infants, with long-term ophthalmic surveillance often recommended. However, there are no clear guidelines for ophthalmic surveillance in infants with asymptomatic disease. We aim to conduct a systematic review to establish the overall prevalence and incidence of eye and vision related disorders following congenital CMV infection (cCMV).

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A systematic review and meta-analysis (pending appropriate data for analysis) of cross-sectional and longitudinal studies will be conducted. The PubMed, Embase and CINAHL databases will be searched up to 29 March 2022 without date or language restrictions. Studies will be screened by at least two independent reviewers. Methodological quality of included studies will be assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute tool. The primary outcome measures will be incidence and/or prevalence of vision impairment or ophthalmic disorders in patients with symptomatic and asymptomatic cCMV infection. A narrative synthesis will be conducted for all included studies. The overall prevalence will be estimated by pooling data using a random-effects model. Heterogeneity between studies will be estimated using Cochran's Q and the I² statistics. Egger's test will be used to assess for publication bias.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval is not required as there is no primary data collection. Study findings will be disseminated at scientific meetings and through publication in peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

This is not a clinical trial, but the protocol has been registered: CRD42021284678 (PROSPERO).

Grand Challenges in global eye health: a global prioritisation process using Delphi method

BACKGROUND

We undertook a Grand Challenges in Global Eye Health prioritisation exercise to identify the key issues that must be addressed to improve eye health in the context of an ageing population, to eliminate persistent inequities in health-care access, and to mitigate widespread resource limitations.

METHODS

Drawing on methods used in previous Grand Challenges studies, we used a multi-step recruitment strategy to assemble a diverse panel of individuals from a range of disciplines relevant to global eye health from all regions globally to participate in a three-round, online, Delphi-like, prioritisation process to nominate and rank challenges in global eye health. Through this process, we developed both global and regional priority lists.

FINDINGS

Between Sept 1 and Dec 12, 2019, 470 individuals complete round 1 of the process, of whom 336 completed all three rounds (round 2 between Feb 26 and March 18, 2020, and round 3 between April 2 and April 25, 2020) 156 (46%) of 336 were women, 180 (54%) were men. The proportion of participants who worked in each region ranged from 104 (31%) in sub-Saharan Africa to 21 (6%) in central Europe, eastern Europe, and in central Asia. Of 85 unique challenges identified after round 1, 16 challenges were prioritised at the global level; six focused on detection and treatment of conditions (cataract, refractive error, glaucoma, diabetic retinopathy, services for children and screening for early detection), two focused on addressing shortages in human resource capacity, five on other health service and policy factors (including strengthening policies, integration, health information systems, and budget allocation), and three on improving access to care and promoting equity.

INTERPRETATION

This list of Grand Challenges serves as a starting point for immediate action by funders to guide investment in research and innovation in eye health. It challenges researchers, clinicians, and policy makers to build collaborations to address specific challenges.

FUNDING

The Queen Elizabeth Diamond Jubilee Trust, Moorfields Eye Charity, National Institute for Health Research Moorfields Biomedical Research Centre, Wellcome Trust, Sightsavers, The Fred Hollows Foundation, The Seva Foundation, British Council for the Prevention of Blindness, and Christian Blind Mission.

TRANSLATIONS

For the French, Spanish, Chinese, Portuguese, Arabic and Persian translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Minimally Invasive Glaucoma Surgical Techniques for Open-Angle Glaucoma: An Overview of Cochrane Systematic Reviews and Network Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Glaucoma affects more than 75 million people worldwide. Intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering surgery is an important treatment for this disease. Interest in reducing surgical morbidity has led to the introduction of minimally invasive glaucoma surgeries (MIGS). Understanding the comparative effectiveness and safety of MIGS is necessary for clinicians and patients.

OBJECTIVE

To summarize data from randomized clinical trials of MIGS for open-angle glaucoma, which were evaluated in a suite of Cochrane reviews.

DATA SOURCES

The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews including studies published before June 1, 2021.

STUDY SELECTION

Reviews of randomized clinical trials comparing MIGS with cataract extraction alone, other MIGS, traditional glaucoma surgery, laser trabeculoplasty, or medical therapy.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Data were extracted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines by one investigator and confirmed by a second. Methodologic rigor was assessed using the AMSTAR 2 appraisal tool and random-effects network meta-analyses were conducted.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The proportion of participants who did not need to use medication to reduce intraocular pressure (IOP) postsurgery (drop-free). Outcomes were analyzed at short-term (<6 months), medium-term (6-18 months), and long-term (>18 months) follow-up.

RESULTS

Six eligible Cochrane reviews were identified discussing trabecular bypass with iStent or Hydrus microstents, ab interno trabeculotomy with Trabectome, subconjunctival and supraciliary drainage devices, and endoscopic cyclophotocoagulation. Moderate certainty evidence indicated that adding a Hydrus safely improved the likelihood of drop-free glaucoma control at medium-term (relative risk [RR], 1.6; 95% CI, 1.4 to 1.8) and long-term (RR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.4 to 1.9) follow-up and conferred 2.0-mm Hg (95% CI, -2.7 to -1.3 mm Hg) greater IOP reduction at long-term follow-up, compared with cataract surgery alone. Adding an iStent also safely improved drop-free disease control compared with cataract surgery alone (RR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.2 to 1.6), but the short-term IOP-lowering effect of the iStent was not sustained. Addition of a CyPass microstent improved drop-free glaucoma control compared with cataract surgery alone (RR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.1 to 1.5) but was associated with an increased risk of vraision loss. Network meta-analyses supported the direction and magnitude of these results.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Based on data synthesized in Cochrane reviews, some MIGS may afford patients with glaucoma greater drop-free disease control than cataract surgery alone. Among the products currently available, randomized clinical trial data associate the Hydrus with greater drop-free glaucoma control and IOP lowering than the iStent; however, these effect sizes were small.

Identifying priority review questions for Cochrane Eyes and Vision: protocol for a priority setting exercise

INTRODUCTION

Cochrane Eyes and Vision (CEV) is an international network of individuals working to prepare, maintain and promote access to systematic reviews of interventions to treat, prevent or diagnose eye diseases or vision impairment. CEV plans to undertake a priority setting exercise to identify systematically research questions relevant to our scope, and to formally incorporate input from a wide range of stakeholders to set priorities for new and updated reviews.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The scope of CEV is broad and our reviews include conditions that are common and have a high global disease burden, for example, cataract and dry eye disease, and conditions that are rare but have a high impact on quality of life and high individual cost such as eye cancer. We plan to focus on conditions prioritised by WHO during the development of the Package of Eye Care Interventions. These conditions were selected based on a combination of data on disease magnitude, healthcare use and expert opinion. We will identify priority review questions systematically by summarising relevant data on research in Eyes and Vision from a range of sources, and compiling a list of 10-15 potential review questions (new and/or updates) for each condition group. We will seek the views of external and internal stakeholders on this list by conducting an online survey. Equity will be a specific consideration.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study has been approved by the ethics committee of the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. We will disseminate the findings through Cochrane channels and prepare a summary of the work for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

A patient-clinician James Lind Alliance partnership to identify research priorities for hyperemesis gravidarum

OBJECTIVE

There are many uncertainties surrounding the aetiology, treatment and sequelae of hyperemesis gravidarum (HG). Prioritising research questions could reduce research waste, helping researchers and funders direct attention to those questions which most urgently need addressing. The HG priority setting partnership (PSP) was established to identify and rank the top 25 priority research questions important to both patients and clinicians.

METHODS

Following the James Lind Alliance (JLA) methodology, an HG PSP steering group was established. Stakeholders representing patients, carers and multidisciplinary professionals completed an online survey to gather uncertainties. Eligible uncertainties related to HG. Uncertainties on nausea and vomiting of pregnancy and those on complementary treatments were not eligible. Questions were verified against the evidence. Two rounds of prioritisation included an online ranking survey and a 1-hour consensus workshop.

RESULTS

1009 participants (938 patients/carers, 118 professionals with overlap between categories) submitted 2899 questions. Questions originated from participants in 26 different countries, and people from 32 countries took part in the first prioritisation stage. 66 unique questions emerged, which were evidence checked according to the agreed protocol. 65 true uncertainties were narrowed via an online ranking survey to 26 unranked uncertainties. The consensus workshop was attended by 19 international patients and clinicians who reached consensus on the top 10 questions for international researchers to address. More patients than professionals took part in the surveys but were equally distributed during the consensus workshop. Participants from low-income and middle-income countries noted that the priorities may be different in their settings.

CONCLUSIONS

By following the JLA method, a prioritised list of uncertainties relevant to both HG patients and their clinicians has been identified which can inform the international HG research agenda, funders and policy-makers. While it is possible to conduct an international PSP, results from developed countries may not be as relevant in low-income and middle-income countries.

Patients, Public and Service Users are Experts by Experience: An Overview from Ophthalmology Research in Canada, UK and Beyond

Discussion of the positive impact on research and mutual benefit that arises through genuine researcher and expert by experience collaboration has been noticeably absent from global sight loss and vision conferences. This article is co-authored by a parent advocate whose children have bilateral retinoblastoma, an eye health researcher and a practitioner in patient and public involvement in research who came together at the 2019 annual meeting of the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology to share their first-hand experiences. The aim of this commentary is to highlight good practice and encourage colleagues to pursue steps towards a more engaged ophthalmology research landscape globally.

Equity was rarely considered in Cochrane Eyes and Vision systematic reviews and primary studies on cataract

OBJECTIVE

We sought to understand the extent to which Cochrane Eyes and Vision systematic reviews of interventions for cataract, and primary studies, consider equity.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

This is a review of Cochrane Eyes and Vision systematic reviews (CSRs) on cataract published on the Cochrane Library (end of March 2019) (n = 23), and recently published primary studies included in those reviews (n = 62), using the PROGRESSPlus framework.

RESULTS

One CSR considered equity as a topic. Four (17%) CSRs included a low- and middle-income country (LMIC) author; one of them was a first author. The CSR with equity as a main topic restricted primary studies to those conducted in LMICs; otherwise none of the systematic reviews used PROGRESS factors as inclusion or exclusion criteria. None of the CSRs reported subgroup analyses by any PROGRESS factor, although these were planned in two. Two of the primary studies were led by an LMIC author; 42% involved LMIC authors; 37% were conducted in LMICs; 73% of studies reported on gender/sex of participants, but other PROGRESS factors were less frequently reported. Three studies reported subgroup analyses by sex; one reported subgroup analyses by race/ethnicity.

CONCLUSION

PROGRESS factors and equity are rarely considered in studies of interventions for cataract, and this is reflected in the associated Cochrane reviews.

The top 10 retinoblastoma research priorities in Canada as determined by patients, clinicians and researchers: a patient-oriented priority-setting partnership

BACKGROUND

Retinoblastoma is a childhood cancer of the eye that can have lifelong effects on patients and families. The purpose of this study was for people affected by retinoblastoma, clinicians and researchers to jointly determine the top 10 retinoblastoma research priorities in Canada.

METHODS

An adaptation of the James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) methodology was employed. People were invited to participate in any stage of the priority-setting process if they were a resident of Canada, and were a patient with retinoblastoma (or a family member or friend of someone diagnosed with retinoblastoma) or a clinician or researcher interested in retinoblastoma. Patients were full partners in study design and implementation, and result dissemination, through involvement in a national working group (1 patient and 9 nonpatients) and steering committee (4 patients and 11 nonpatients). In phase 1 of the study, participants responded to an online survey that asked, "What questions about retinoblastoma would you like to see answered by research?" In phase 2, the steering committee reviewed and refined the list of survey responses and decided on a list of 30 questions to be ranked by means of the nominal group technique in phase 3, a priority-setting workshop.

RESULTS

In total, 175 retinoblastoma research questions were suggested by 59 survey participants (38 patients and 21 nonpatients). The categories with the greatest number of questions were genetics and molecular (45 [25.7%]), second cancer (29 [16.6%]) and psychosocial (27 [15.4%]). The top 10 questions as ranked by the workshop participants (10 patients and 10 nonpatients) fell into 7 categories: second cancer (2 questions), follow-up (2), psychosocial (2), treatment (1), diagnosis (1), global health (1) and miscellaneous (1). The early diagnosis of retinoblastoma was identified as the top retinoblastoma research priority in Canada.

INTERPRETATION

The list of priorities will serve as a resource for advocacy groups, research teams and funding agencies that focus on retinoblastoma. The inclusion of researchers as participants was an adaptation of the James Lind Alliance PSP methodology and enriched the research prioritization process.

Systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials on open angle glaucoma

Evidence for the effectiveness of interventions to prevent the progression of optic nerve damage in open angle glaucoma has evolved over the last 25 years. We describe that evolution through the systematic reviews on various aspects of the topic and how those reviews have highlighted the need for new trials. Though we can be confident that lowering pressure does indeed reduce the risk of progression, we still lack good evidence on the comparative effectiveness of different treatments not so much on lowering pressure but on preventing progression of the disease. This is true for different medicines, types of laser and especially for different surgical interventions. As always there is a need for more research, but this needs to be focussed on key uncertainties using core outcome sets which avoid research waste. Ultimately, our guidelines can be based on sound and comprehensive evidence of effectiveness.

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.

A systematic review of pharmacists' interventions to support medicines optimisation in patients with visual impairment

Background People with visual impairment often report poorer health and encounter many challenges when using medicines. Pharmacists can play a significant role in optimising medicines use for these patients. However, little is known about pharmacists' current practices when providing services to this population nor the impact of such services, if any, on medicines optimisation-related outcomes. Aim of the review This systematic review aims to identify the types, and assess the effectiveness of, interventions provided by pharmacists on medicines optimisation-related outcomes. Method Systematic searches of the following electronic databases were carried out from date of inception to March 2018: Cochrane Library; MEDLINE; EMBASE; International Pharmaceutical Abstracts; Scopus; and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature. Several trial registries and grey literature resources were also searched. Any randomised controlled trials, non-randomised controlled trials, controlled before-and-after studies, or interrupted time series analyses reporting on interventions provided by pharmacists to adult visually impaired patients and/or their caregivers in order to improve medicines optimisation-related outcomes of medicine safety, adherence, patient satisfaction, shared decision making, or quality of life were included. Results A total of 1877 titles/abstracts were screened, and 27 full text articles were assessed for eligibility. On examination of full texts, no studies met the inclusion criteria for this review. Conclusion This review highlights the need for future research that would be vital for promoting the safe and effective use of medicines and the delivery of pharmaceutical care services to people with visual impairment.

The first UK national blepharospasm patient and public involvement day; identifying priorities

PURPOSE

We describe the planning and outcomes of the first 'Blepharospasm Day' in the UK. Blepharospasm is a distressing condition for patients and carers. Our 'patient and public involvement' event aimed to: cultivate a more informed patient group via active dialogue, help clinicians more effectively prioritise research and to facilitate peer-to-peer support for affected patients and public.

DESIGN

A national one-day event was organised by the oculoplastics department at Moorfields Eye Hospital. The event was divided into informative lectures delivered by professionals and a patient panel, during which patients shared their experiences and expectations.

METHODS

Data were collected from a variety of sources including: an interactive voting "LiveWall" poster, a pre-event questionnaire; "living with Blepharospasm", transcripts from patient panel discussions; and a feedback questionnaire.

RESULTS

The event was well-received with 100% of respondents rating it good or excellent. Four research themes were identified: "aetiology", "alternative treatments", "faster, more accurate diagnosis", and "symptom control". Delegates' self-reported knowledge of blepharospasm increased significantly after the event. Limitations of the BdSI severity-assessment tool were noted with 22% of respondents failing to utilise it appropriately.

CONCLUSION

Through our innovative "Blepharospasm Day", patient's priorities for research were identified, delegates understanding of blepharospasm increased and an independent blepharospasm patients-representatives' group was established; a first in the UK. Furthermore, short-fallings identified in the BdSI tool highlight the need for better severity-assessment tools. We demonstrate the benefits of the 'patient and public involvement' approach in the management of complex conditions such as blepharospasm.

ABBREVIATIONS

PPI: Patient and public involvement; SLV-PSP: sight loss and vision sector - priority setting partnership; BRC: Biomedical Research Centre; NIHR: National Institute for Health Research; BsDI: Blepharospasm Disability Index.

The James Lind Alliance process approach: scoping review

OBJECTIVE

To summarise study descriptions of the James Lind Alliance (JLA) approach to the priority setting partnership (PSP) process and how this process is used to identify uncertainties and to develop lists of top 10 priorities.

DESIGN

Scoping review.

DATA SOURCES

The Embase, Medline (Ovid), PubMed, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library as of October 2018.

STUDY SELECTION

All studies reporting the use of JLA process steps and the development of a list of top 10 priorities, with adult participants aged 18 years.

DATA EXTRACTION

A data extraction sheet was created to collect demographic details, study aims, sample and patient group details, PSP details (eg, stakeholders), lists of top 10 priorities, descriptions of JLA facilitator roles and the PSP stages followed. Individual and comparative appraisals were discussed among the scoping review authors until agreement was reached.

RESULTS

Database searches yielded 431 potentially relevant studies published in 2010-2018, of which 37 met the inclusion criteria. JLA process participants were patients, carers and clinicians, aged 18 years, who had experience with the study-relevant diagnoses. All studies reported having a steering group, although partners and stakeholders were described differently across studies. The number of JLA PSP process steps varied from four to eight. Uncertainties were typically collected via an online survey hosted on, or linked to, the PSP website. The number of submitted uncertainties varied across studies, from 323 submitted by 58 participants to 8227 submitted by 2587 participants.

CONCLUSIONS

JLA-based PSP makes a useful contribution to identifying research questions. Through this process, patients, carers and clinicians work together to identify and prioritise unanswered uncertainties. However, representation of those with different health conditions depends on their having the capacity and resources to participate. No studies reported difficulties in developing their top 10 priorities.

Patient priorities in herpes simplex keratitis

Objective

Herpes simplex keratitis (HSK) is a sight-threatening disease and a leading cause of infectious corneal blindness. Involving patients in setting the research agenda maximises patient benefit and minimises research waste. With no published patient involvement exercises, patients' priorities in HSK are unclear. The objective of this study is to explore patients' priorities for research in HSK.

Methods

A literature review of publications in the year preceding recruitment of patients identified nine domains of research interest. A questionnaire was sent to participants asking them to rank these in order of priority. The ranking results were given a weighted-average score, and a thematic analysis was undertaken for the narrative data.

Results

Thirty-seven patients participated in the survey. Top priorities for patients were risk factors for recurrence of infection, diagnostic tests and treatment failure. The narrative data revealed three key clinical needs: difficulties in long-term symptom control, the need for rapid access care in acute infection and the desire for more accessible information.

Conclusion

This study highlighted three major issues in our current approach to HSK. First, there may be a misalignment between research efforts and patient priorities. Second, high-quality patient information is not widely available. This may hamper patients' abilities to make informed decisions and contribute towards research. Third, clinical service priorities are of equal importance to patients as research. Researchers and clinicians are encouraged to address both needs in parallel.

Different lasers and techniques for proliferative diabetic retinopathy

BACKGROUND

Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is a chronic progressive disease of the retinal microvasculature associated with prolonged hyperglycaemia. Proliferative DR (PDR) is a sight-threatening complication of DR and is characterised by the development of abnormal new vessels in the retina, optic nerve head or anterior segment of the eye. Argon laser photocoagulation has been the gold standard for the treatment of PDR for many years, using regimens evaluated by the Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS). Over the years, there have been modifications of the technique and introduction of new laser technologies.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of different types of laser, other than argon laser, and different laser protocols, other than those established by the ETDRS, for the treatment of PDR. We compared different wavelengths; power and pulse duration; pattern, number and location of burns versus standard argon laser undertaken as specified by the ETDRS.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2017, Issue 5); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; LILACS; the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov and the ICTRP. The date of the search was 8 June 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of pan-retinal photocoagulation (PRP) using standard argon laser for treatment of PDR compared with any other laser modality. We excluded studies of lasers that are not in common use, such as the xenon arc, ruby or Krypton laser.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed Cochrane guidelines and graded the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 11 studies from Europe (6), the USA (2), the Middle East (1) and Asia (2). Five studies compared different types of laser to argon: Nd:YAG (2 studies) or diode (3 studies). Other studies compared modifications to the standard argon laser PRP technique. The studies were poorly reported and we judged all to be at high risk of bias in at least one domain. The sample size varied from 20 to 270 eyes but the majority included 50 participants or fewer.Nd:YAG versus argon laser (2 studies): very low-certainty evidence on vision loss, vision gain, progression and regression of PDR, pain during laser treatment and adverse effects.Diode versus argon laser (3 studies): very-low certainty evidence on vision loss, vision gain, progression and regression of PDR and adverse effects; moderate-certainty evidence that diode laser was more painful (risk ratio (RR) troublesome pain during laser treatment (RR 3.12, 95% CI 2.16 to 4.51; eyes = 202; studies = 3; I² = 0%).0.5 second versus 0.1 second exposure (1 study): low-certainty evidence of lower chance of vision loss with 0.5 second compared with 0.1 second exposure but estimates were imprecise and compatible with no difference or an increased chance of vision loss (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.08 to 2.04, 44 eyes, 1 RCT); low-certainty evidence that people treated with 0.5 second exposure were more likely to gain vision (RR 2.22, 95% CI 0.68 to 7.28, 44 eyes, 1 RCT) but again the estimates were imprecise . People given 0.5 second exposure were more likely to have regression of PDR compared with 0.1 second laser PRP again with imprecise estimate (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.48, 32 eyes, 1 RCT). There was very low-certainty evidence on progression of PDR and adverse effects.'Light intensity' PRP versus classic PRP (1 study): vision loss or gain was not reported but the mean difference in logMAR acuity at 1 year was -0.09 logMAR (95% CI -0.22 to 0.04, 65 eyes, 1 RCT); and low-certainty evidence that fewer patients had pain during light PRP compared with classic PRP with an imprecise estimate compatible with increased or decreased pain (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.03 to 1.93, 65 eyes, 1 RCT).'Mild scatter' (laser pattern limited to 400 to 600 laser burns in one sitting) PRP versus standard 'full' scatter PRP (1 study): very low-certainty evidence on vision and visual field loss. No information on adverse effects.'Central' (a more central PRP in addition to mid-peripheral PRP) versus 'peripheral' standard PRP (1 study): low-certainty evidence that people treated with central PRP were more likely to lose 15 or more letters of BCVA compared with peripheral laser PRP (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.67 to 13.46, 50 eyes, 1 RCT); and less likely to gain 15 or more letters (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.08) with imprecise estimates compatible with increased or decreased risk.'Centre sparing' PRP (argon laser distribution limited to 3 disc diameters from the upper temporal and lower margin of the fovea) versus standard 'full scatter' PRP (1 study): low-certainty evidence that people treated with 'centre sparing' PRP were less likely to lose 15 or more ETDRS letters of BCVA compared with 'full scatter' PRP (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.50, 53 eyes). Low-certainty evidence of similar risk of regression of PDR between groups (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.27, 53 eyes). Adverse events were not reported.'Extended targeted' PRP (to include the equator and any capillary non-perfusion areas between the vascular arcades) versus standard PRP (1 study): low-certainty evidence that people in the extended group had similar or slightly reduced chance of loss of 15 or more letters of BCVA compared with the standard PRP group (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.28, 270 eyes). Low-certainty evidence that people in the extended group had a similar or slightly increased chance of regression of PDR compared with the standard PRP group (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.31, 270 eyes). Very low-certainty information on adverse effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Modern laser techniques and modalities have been developed to treat PDR. However there is limited evidence available with respect to the efficacy and safety of alternative laser systems or strategies compared with the standard argon laser as described in ETDRS.

Rapid research and implementation priority setting for wound care uncertainties

INTRODUCTION

People with complex wounds are more likely to be elderly, living with multimorbidity and wound related symptoms. A variety of products are available for managing complex wounds and a range of healthcare professionals are involved in wound care, yet there is a lack of good evidence to guide practice and services. These factors create uncertainty for those who deliver and those who manage wound care. Formal priority setting for research and implementation topics is needed to more accurately target the gaps in treatment and services. We solicited practitioner and manager uncertainties in wound care and held a priority setting workshop to facilitate a collaborative approach to prioritising wound care-related uncertainties.

METHODS

We recruited healthcare professionals who regularly cared for patients with complex wounds, were wound care specialists or managed wound care services. Participants submitted up to five wound care uncertainties in consultation with their colleagues, via an on-line survey and attended a priority setting workshop. Submitted uncertainties were collated, sorted and categorised according professional group. On the day of the workshop, participants were divided into four groups depending on their profession. Uncertainties submitted by their professional group were viewed, discussed and amended, prior to the first of three individual voting rounds. Participants cast up to ten votes for the uncertainties they judged as being high priority. Continuing in the professional groups, the top 10 uncertainties from each group were displayed, and the process was repeated. Groups were then brought together for a plenary session in which the final priorities were individually scored on a scale of 0-10 by participants. Priorities were ranked and results presented. Nominal group technique was used for generating the final uncertainties, voting and discussions.

RESULTS

Thirty-three participants attended the workshop comprising; 10 specialist nurses, 10 district nurses, seven podiatrists and six managers. Participants had been qualified for a mean of 20.7 years with a mean of 16.8 years of wound care experience. One hundred and thirty-nine uncertainties were submitted electronically and a further 20 were identified on the day of the workshop following lively, interactive group discussions. Twenty-five uncertainties from the total of 159 generated made it to the final prioritised list. These included six of the 20 new uncertainties. The uncertainties varied in focus, but could be broadly categorised into three themes: service delivery and organisation, patient centred care and treatment options. Specialist nurses were more likely to vote for service delivery and organisation topics, podiatrists for patient centred topics, district nurses for treatment options and operational leads for a broad range.

CONCLUSIONS

This collaborative priority setting project is the first to engage front-line clinicians in prioritising research and implementation topics in wound care. We have shown that it is feasible to conduct topic prioritisation in a short time frame. This project has demonstrated that with careful planning and rigor, important questions that are raised in the course of clinicians' daily decision making can be translated into meaningful research and implementation initiatives that could make a difference to service delivery and patient care.

Stroke survivors' views and experiences on impact of visual impairment

OBJECTIVES

We sought to determine stroke survivors' views on impact of stroke-related visual impairment to quality of life.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Stroke survivors with visual impairment, more than 1 year post stroke onset, were recruited. Semistructured biographical narrative interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. A thematic approach to analysis of the qualitative data was adopted. Transcripts were systematically coded using NVivo10 software.

RESULTS

Thirty-five stroke survivors were interviewed across the UK: 16 females, 19 males; aged 20-75 years at stroke onset. Five qualitative themes emerged: "Formal care," "Symptoms and self," "Adaptations," "Daily life," and "Information." Where visual problems existed, they were often not immediately recognized as part of the stroke syndrome and attributed to other causes such as migraine. Many participants did not receive early vision assessment or treatment for their visual problems. Visual problems included visual field loss, double vision, and perceptual problems. Impact of visual problems included loss in confidence, being a burden to others, increased collisions/accidents, and fear of falling. They made many self-identified adaptations to compensate for visual problems: magnifiers, large print, increased lighting, use of white sticks. There was a consistent lack of support and provision of information about visual problems.

CONCLUSIONS

Poststroke visual impairment causes considerable impact to daily life which could be substantially improved by simple measures including early formal visual assessment, management and advice on adaptive strategies and self-management options. Improved education about poststroke visual impairment for the public and clinicians could aid earlier diagnosis of visual impairments.

Priorities for research in miscarriage: a priority setting partnership between people affected by miscarriage and professionals following the James Lind Alliance methodology

OBJECTIVES

To identify and prioritise important research questions for miscarriage.

DESIGN

A priority setting partnership using prospective surveys and consensus meetings following methods advocated by the James Lind Alliance.

SETTING

UK.

PARTICIPANTS

Women and those affected by miscarriage working alongside healthcare professionals.

RESULTS

In the initial survey, 1093 participants (932 women who have experienced miscarriage, 8 partners, 17 family members, friends or colleagues, 104 healthcare professionals and eight charitable organisations) submitted 3279 questions. A review of existing literature identified a further 64. Non-questions were removed, and the remaining questions were categorised and summarised into 58 questions. In an interim electronic survey, 2122 respondents chose their top 10 priorities from the 58 summary questions. The 25 highest ranked in the survey were prioritised at a final face-to-face workshop. In summary, the top 10 priorities were ranked as follows: research into preventative treatment, emotional aspects in general, investigation, relevance of pre-existing medical conditions, emotional support as a treatment, importance of lifestyle factors, importance of genetic and chromosomal causes, preconception tests, investigation after different numbers of miscarriage and male causal factors.

CONCLUSIONS

These results should be the focus of future miscarriage research. Presently, studies are being conducted to address the top priority; however, many other priorities, especially psychological and emotional support, are less well researched areas. We hope our results will encourage both researchers and funders to focus on these priorities.

Research Priorities in Sudden Unexpected Infant Death: An International Consensus

Despite the success of safe sleep campaigns and the progress in understanding risk factors, the rate of reduction in the cases of sudden infant death syndrome has now slowed and it remains a leading cause of postneonatal mortality in many developed countries. Strategic action is needed to tackle this problem and it is now vital to identify how the sudden infant death research community may best target its efforts. The Global Action and Prioritization of Sudden Infant Death Project was an international consensus process that aimed to define and direct future research by investigating the priorities of expert and lay members of the sudden unexpected infant death (SUID) community across countries. The aim was to identify which areas of research should be prioritized to reduce the number of SUID deaths globally. Scientific researchers, clinicians, counselors, educators, and SUID parents from 25 countries took part across 2 online surveys to identify potential research priorities. Workshops subsequently took place in the United Kingdom, United States, and Australia to reach consensus and 10 priority areas for research were established. Three main themes among the priorities emerged: (1) a better understanding of mechanisms underlying SUID, (2) ensuring best practice in data collection, management and sharing, and (3) a better understanding of target populations and more effective communication of risk. SUID is a global problem and this project provides the international SUID community with a list of shared research priorities to more effectively work toward explaining and reducing the number of sudden infant deaths.

Patient involvement in research priorities (PIRE): a study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Patient involvement in healthcare has expanded from the clinical practice setting to include collaboration during the research process. There has been a growing international interest in patient and public involvement in setting research priorities to reduce the risk of discrepancy between what patients with cancer and their relatives experience as important unanswered questions and those which are actually researched. This study aims to challenge the conventional research process by inviting patients with life-threatening cancer (primary malignant brain tumours or acute leukaemia), relatives and patient organisations to join forces with clinical specialists and researchers to identify, discuss and prioritise supportive care and rehabilitation issues in future research.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is an exploratory qualitative study comprising two sets of three focus group interviews (FGIs): one set for primary malignant brain tumours and the other for acute leukaemia. Separate FGIs will be carried out with patients and relatives including representation from patient organisations and clinical specialists to identify important unanswered questions and research topics within each group. The FGIs will be video/audio recorded, transcribed and thematically analysed. This study will contribute to a patient-centred research agenda that captures issues that patients, their relatives, clinical specialists and researchers consider important.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study is registered at the Danish Data Protection Agency (number: 2012-58-0004) and the Scientific Ethics Review Committee of the Capital Region of Denmark (number: H-15001485). Papers will be published describing the methods applied and the supportive care and rehabilitation issues that are identified as important for future research.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN57131943; Pre-results.

Macular disease research in the United Kingdom 2011-2014: a bibliometric analysis of outputs, performance and coverage

Background

Bibliometric indicators, based on measuring patterns of publications and citations, are widely used by universities and research funders to assess research performance. Our aims were to: (1) perform a bibliometric analysis of UK macular disease research publications from 2011 to 2014 and compare this with the other countries producing major output in the area, and (2) compare the pattern of UK macular disease publication with the priorities for age-related macular degeneration (AMD) developed by the Sight Loss and Vision Priority Setting Partnership (SLV-PSP).

Methods

We used the Scopus database to retrieve macular disease articles published from 2011 to 2014. Citations to articles from 2011 to 2013 and journal impact factors (JIFs) for 2014 articles were obtained. Articles with UK authors were allocated to the 10 SLV-PSP priorities for age-related macular degeneration (AMD), where possible.

Results

The UK, USA, and Germany and China were the top four producers of macular disease research from 2011 to 2013. All except China had a higher proportion of citations than articles. There were 421 articles with UK authors published from 2011 to 2014, of which 49 % had international collaborators. The UK produced 9.7 % of the world’s output of macular disease articles from 2011 to 2013, but received 14.2 % of the world’s share of citations. UK authors’ share of the world’s top 10 % of cited publications from 2011 to 2013 was 16.2 %. In 2014, 13.2 % of UK articles were in journals in the top 10 % when ranked by Journal Impact Factors (JIFs), while the overall UK article share for that year was 9.9 %. UK articles did not show a strong correlation between citations and JIFs. The SLV-PSP published a set of 10 priorities for research into age-related macular degeneration in October 2103. Only 8 % of the UK’s 2011–2014 publications matched the SLV-PSP top priority (treatment to stop dry AMD progressing) and 34 % did not match any of the SLV-PSP priorities, mainly because the priorities did not include invasive treatment of wet AMD.

Conclusions

The UK is performing well in macular research, based on bibliometric indicators. The distribution of past research topics does not match the priorities set by the SLV-PSP.

Identifying acne treatment uncertainties via a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership

OBJECTIVES

The Acne Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) was set up to identify and rank treatment uncertainties by bringing together people with acne, and professionals providing care within and beyond the National Health Service (NHS).

SETTING

The UK with international participation.

PARTICIPANTS

Teenagers and adults with acne, parents, partners, nurses, clinicians, pharmacists, private practitioners.

METHODS

Treatment uncertainties were collected via separate online harvesting surveys, embedded within the PSP website, for patients and professionals. A wide variety of approaches were used to promote the surveys to stakeholder groups with a particular emphasis on teenagers and young adults. Survey submissions were collated using keywords and verified as uncertainties by appraising existing evidence. The 30 most popular themes were ranked via weighted scores from an online vote. At a priority setting workshop, patients and professionals discussed the 18 highest-scoring questions from the vote, and reached consensus on the top 10.

RESULTS

In the harvesting survey, 2310 people, including 652 professionals and 1456 patients (58% aged 24 y or younger), made submissions containing at least one research question. After checking for relevance and rephrasing, a total of 6255 questions were collated into themes. Valid votes ranking the 30 most common themes were obtained from 2807 participants. The top 10 uncertainties prioritised at the workshop were largely focused on management strategies, optimum use of common prescription medications and the role of non-drug based interventions. More female than male patients took part in the harvesting surveys and vote. A wider range of uncertainties were provided by patients compared to professionals.

CONCLUSIONS

Engaging teenagers and young adults in priority setting is achievable using a variety of promotional methods. The top 10 uncertainties reveal an extensive knowledge gap about widely used interventions and the relative merits of drug versus non-drug based treatments in acne management.

New and emerging technologies for the treatment of inherited retinal diseases: a horizon scanning review

The horizon scanning review aimed to identify new and emerging technologies in development that have the potential to slow or stop disease progression and/or reverse sight loss in people with inherited retinal diseases (IRDs). Potential treatments were identified using recognized horizon scanning methods. These included a combination of online searches using predetermined search terms, suggestions from clinical experts and patient and carer focus groups, and contact with commercial developers. Twenty-nine relevant technologies were identified. These included 9 gene therapeutic approaches, 10 medical devices, 5 pharmacological agents, and 5 regenerative and cell therapies. A further 11 technologies were identified in very early phases of development (typically phase I or pre-clinical) and were included in the final report to give a complete picture of developments 'on the horizon'. Clinical experts and patient and carer focus groups provided helpful information and insights, such as the availability of specialised services for patients, the potential impacts of individual technologies on people with IRDs and their families, and helped to identify additional relevant technologies. This engagement ensured that important areas of innovation were not missed. Most of the health technologies identified are still at an early stage of development and it is difficult to estimate when treatments might be available. Further, well designed trials that generate data on efficacy, applicability, acceptability, and costs of the technologies, as well as the long-term impacts for various conditions are required before these can be considered for adoption into routine clinical practice.

Research priorities in mesothelioma: A James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership

BACKGROUND

In the UK, despite the import and use of all forms of asbestos being banned more than 15 years ago, the incidence of mesothelioma continues to rise. Mesothelioma is almost invariably fatal, and more research is required, not only to find more effective treatments, but also to achieve an earlier diagnosis and improve palliative care. Following a debate in the House of Lords in July 2013, a package of measures was agreed, which included a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership, funded by the National Institute for Health Research. The partnership brought together patients, carers, health professionals and support organisations to agree the top 10 research priorities relating to the diagnosis, treatment and care of patients with mesothelioma.

METHODS

Following the established James Lind Alliance priority setting process, mesothelioma patients, current and bereaved carers, and health professionals were surveyed to elicit their concerns regarding diagnosis, treatment and care. Research questions were generated from the survey responses, and following checks that the questions were currently unanswered, an interim prioritisation survey was conducted to identify a shortlist of questions to take to a final consensus meeting.

FINDINGS

Four hundred and fifty-three initial surveys were returned, which were refined into 52 unique unanswered research questions. The interim prioritisation survey was completed by 202 responders, and the top 30 questions were taken to a final meeting where mesothelioma patients, carers, and health professionals prioritised all the questions, and reached a consensus on the top 10.

INTERPRETATION

The top 10 questions cover a wide portfolio of research (including assessing the value of immunotherapy, individualised chemotherapy, second-line treatment and immediate chemotherapy, monitoring patients with pleural thickening, defining the management of ascites in peritoneal mesothelioma, and optimising follow-up strategy). This list is an invaluable resource, which should be used to inform the prioritisation and funding of future mesothelioma research.

Care provision for poststroke visual impairment

BACKGROUND

We sought to explore the care provision for poststroke visual impairment and variations in this in the United Kingdom.

METHODS

Survey questions were developed and piloted with clinicians, academics, and users. Questions addressed types of visual problems; how these were identified, treated, and followed up; care pathways in use; links with other professions; and referral options. The survey was accessed via a Weblink, which was circulated through UK professional organizations to multiprofessional members of ophthalmic and stroke teams.

RESULTS

A total of 548 completed electronic surveys were obtained. In all, 49.5% of respondents represented stroke teams, 42.5% eye teams, and 8% from other teams, for example, emergency care. Many respondents (41%) saw patients within 1 week of stroke. Nineteen percent did not personally test vision: 11% had a visiting clinician to test vision, and 22% used screening tools. Validated tests were used for the assessment of visual acuity (39.5%), visual field (57.5%), eye movement (48.5%), and visual function (58.5%). Visual problems suspected by family or professionals were high (88.5%). Typical overall follow-up period of vision care was less than 3 months. In all, 46% of respondents used designated care pathways for stroke survivors with visual problems; 33.5% of respondents did not provide visual information leaflets.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant inequality exists in care for stroke survivors who experience visual problems. There is great variability in how vision screening is undertaken, which vision tests are used, methods of referral to eye care services, how visual problems are managed, and what vision information is provided to stroke survivors/carers. Further work is required to ensure equality and effective care.