Literature DB >> 22482469

Appraisal of patient-reported outcome instruments available for randomized clinical trials in dry eye: revisiting the standards.

Isabelle Guillemin1, Carolyn Begley, Robin Chalmers, Christophe Baudouin, Benoit Arnould.   

Abstract

Clinical signs in dry eye (DE) often underestimate the severity of the condition, correlating poorly with symptoms and the impact on patients' health-related quality of life (HRQL). Patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires are therefore essential to accurately evaluate the health status of DE patients and the severity of their condition. A comprehensive evaluation of HRQL in addition to clinical signs and visual function is necessary to fully characterize the impact of DE on patients' health. Growing interest in PRO measures and their implementation in clinical trials has resulted in more formal guidance on the design and properties of these instruments. To be scientifically sound and accepted by regulatory authorities, an instrument's development process and its appropriateness for use in the target population, its psychometric properties and responsiveness must be described. To address the recent health authority guidance, this review discusses the design, development methodology, and performance of currently available PRO instruments for DE.
Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22482469     DOI: 10.1016/j.jtos.2012.01.007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ocul Surf        ISSN: 1542-0124            Impact factor:   5.033


  9 in total

1.  Patient priorities in herpes simplex keratitis.

Authors:  Xiaoxuan Liu; Sai Kolli; Peter McDonnell; Amit Patel; Michael Quinlan; Kevin Skym; Alastair K Denniston; Peter Shah; Geraint P Williams
Journal:  BMJ Open Ophthalmol       Date:  2019-04-25

Review 2.  A review of quality of life measures in dry eye questionnaires.

Authors:  Joseph R Grubbs; Sue Tolleson-Rinehart; Kyle Huynh; Richard M Davis
Journal:  Cornea       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 2.651

3.  Instrument development of the UNC Dry Eye Management Scale.

Authors:  Joseph Grubbs; Kyle Huynh; Sue Tolleson-Rinehart; Mark A Weaver; Jennifer Williamson; Chelsea Lefebvre; Richard M Davis
Journal:  Cornea       Date:  2014-11       Impact factor: 2.651

4.  Reliability and Validity of the Visual, Musculoskeletal, and Balance Complaints Questionnaire.

Authors:  Lars-Olov Lundqvist; Christina Zetterlund; Hans O Richter
Journal:  Optom Vis Sci       Date:  2016-09       Impact factor: 1.973

5.  Self versus examiner administration of the Ocular Surface Disease Index©.

Authors:  William Ngo; Sruthi Srinivasan; Adam Keech; Nancy Keir; Lyndon Jones
Journal:  J Optom       Date:  2016-05-24

6.  Ocular Surface Disease Index© and the five-item dry eye questionnaire: A comparison in Indian patients with dry eye disease.

Authors:  Samrat Chatterjee; Deepshikha Agrawal; Pravda Chaturvedi
Journal:  Indian J Ophthalmol       Date:  2021-09       Impact factor: 1.848

7.  Efficacy, Safety and Patient-Reported Outcomes with Preservative-Free (PF) Tafluprost or PF-Dorzolamide/Timolol Compared with Preserved Latanoprost: A Prospective Multicenter Study in Korean Glaucoma Patients with Ocular Surface Disease.

Authors:  Sang-Woo Park; Jiwoong Lee; Michael S Kook
Journal:  Pharmaceuticals (Basel)       Date:  2022-02-07

8.  A retrospective study of the efficacy of intense pulsed light delivered by the Lacrystim® for meibomian gland dysfunction therapy.

Authors:  Marie-Caroline Trone; Thibaud Garcin; Edouard Ollier; Gilles Thuret; Philippe Gain
Journal:  BMC Ophthalmol       Date:  2022-08-06       Impact factor: 2.086

9.  Prevalence and risk factors of dry eye disease in North India: Ocular surface disease index-based cross-sectional hospital study.

Authors:  Jeewan Singh Titiyal; Ruchita Clara Falera; Manpreet Kaur; Vijay Sharma; Namrata Sharma
Journal:  Indian J Ophthalmol       Date:  2018-02       Impact factor: 1.848

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.