Imran Mahmud1, Thomas Kelley1, Caleb Stowell1, Aravind Haripriya2, Anders Boman3, Ingrid Kossler4, Nigel Morlet5, Suzann Pershing6, Konrad Pesudovs7, Pik Pin Goh8, John M Sparrow9, Mats Lundström10. 1. International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 2. Department of Intraocular Lens and Cataract Services, Aravind Eye Care System, Madurai, India. 3. St Erik Eye Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden. 4. European Cancer Patient Coalition, Brussels, Belgium. 5. Curtin Health Innovation Research Institute, Perth, Western Australia, Australia. 6. Byers Eye Institute, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California7VA Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, California8American Academy of Ophthalmology, San Francisco, California. 7. Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia. 8. National Cataract Registry, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. 9. The Royal College of Ophthalmologists National Ophthalmology Database, London, United Kingdom. 10. International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement, Cambridge, Massachusetts12European Registry of Quality Outcomes for Cataract and Refractive Surgery, Dublin, Ireland.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Aligning outcome measures for cataract surgery, one of the most frequently performed procedures globally, may facilitate international comparisons that can drive improvements in the outcomes most meaningful to patients. OBJECTIVE: To propose a minimum standard set of outcome measures for cataract surgery that enables global comparisons. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A working group of international experts in cataract outcomes and registries was convened, along with a patient advocate, to agree on a consensus of outcome measures for cataract surgery. In a modified Delphi process, the group met regularly between November 10, 2012, and November 21, 2013, to discuss which outcomes to include in a standard set. Included factors were based on extant literature, existing registries, and the experience of group members. Similarly, a series of consensus discussions were held to determine a set of risk factors to be gathered for each patient. The final shortlist was compiled into a standard set. Analysis was performed from November 22, 2013, to April 5, 2014. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Development of a recommended standard set encompassing preoperative metrics including patient risk factors, intraoperative factors including surgical complications, and postoperative cataract surgery outcomes. RESULTS: The recommended standard set encompasses all patients treated for cataracts by 1 of 4 surgical approaches (phacoemulsification, sutured manual extracapsular cataract extraction, sutureless manual extracapsular cataract extraction, or intracapsular cataract extraction). The recommended metrics to be recorded preoperatively include demographics, ocular history and comorbidities, preoperative visual acuity, and patient-reported visual function. The recommended outcomes were split into intraoperative and postoperative metrics. Intraoperative outcomes include capsule-related problems, dislocation of lens nucleus fragments into the vitreous, and other complications. Postoperative outcomes include visual acuity, refractive error, patient-reported visual function, and early and late complications of surgery. The suggested follow-up for collection of postoperative outcomes is up to 3 months. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: A minimum standard set of outcome measures for cataract surgery is important for meaningful comparison across contexts. The proposed data set is a compromise between all useful data and the practicalities of data collection.
IMPORTANCE: Aligning outcome measures for cataract surgery, one of the most frequently performed procedures globally, may facilitate international comparisons that can drive improvements in the outcomes most meaningful to patients. OBJECTIVE: To propose a minimum standard set of outcome measures for cataract surgery that enables global comparisons. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A working group of international experts in cataract outcomes and registries was convened, along with a patient advocate, to agree on a consensus of outcome measures for cataract surgery. In a modified Delphi process, the group met regularly between November 10, 2012, and November 21, 2013, to discuss which outcomes to include in a standard set. Included factors were based on extant literature, existing registries, and the experience of group members. Similarly, a series of consensus discussions were held to determine a set of risk factors to be gathered for each patient. The final shortlist was compiled into a standard set. Analysis was performed from November 22, 2013, to April 5, 2014. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Development of a recommended standard set encompassing preoperative metrics including patient risk factors, intraoperative factors including surgical complications, and postoperative cataract surgery outcomes. RESULTS: The recommended standard set encompasses all patients treated for cataracts by 1 of 4 surgical approaches (phacoemulsification, sutured manual extracapsular cataract extraction, sutureless manual extracapsular cataract extraction, or intracapsular cataract extraction). The recommended metrics to be recorded preoperatively include demographics, ocular history and comorbidities, preoperative visual acuity, and patient-reported visual function. The recommended outcomes were split into intraoperative and postoperative metrics. Intraoperative outcomes include capsule-related problems, dislocation of lens nucleus fragments into the vitreous, and other complications. Postoperative outcomes include visual acuity, refractive error, patient-reported visual function, and early and late complications of surgery. The suggested follow-up for collection of postoperative outcomes is up to 3 months. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: A minimum standard set of outcome measures for cataract surgery is important for meaningful comparison across contexts. The proposed data set is a compromise between all useful data and the practicalities of data collection.
Authors: Ian J Saldanha; Kristina Lindsley; Diana V Do; Roy S Chuck; Catherine Meyerle; Leslie S Jones; Anne L Coleman; Henry D Jampel; Kay Dickersin; Gianni Virgili Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2017-09-01 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: Monica Michelotti; Dirk F de Korne; Jennifer S Weizer; Paul P Lee; Declan Flanagan; Simon P Kelly; Anne Odergren; Sukhpal S Sandhu; Charity Wai; Niek Klazinga; Aravind Haripriya; Joshua D Stein; Melanie Hingorani Journal: BMC Ophthalmol Date: 2017-12-29 Impact factor: 2.209
Authors: Alexander Obbarius; Lisa van Maasakkers; Lee Baer; David M Clark; Anne G Crocker; Edwin de Beurs; Paul M G Emmelkamp; Toshi A Furukawa; Erik Hedman-Lagerlöf; Maria Kangas; Lucie Langford; Alain Lesage; Doris M Mwesigire; Sandra Nolte; Vikram Patel; Paul A Pilkonis; Harold A Pincus; Roberta A Reis; Graciela Rojas; Cathy Sherbourne; Dave Smithson; Caleb Stowell; Kelly Woolaway-Bickel; Matthias Rose Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2017-08-07 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Laureano A Rementería-Capelo; Jorge L García-Pérez; Juan Gros-Otero; Aida Morán; José M Sánchez-Pina; Inés Contreras Journal: J Ophthalmol Date: 2020-04-14 Impact factor: 1.909
Authors: Martijn A H Oude Voshaar; Zofia Das Gupta; Johannes W J Bijlsma; Annelies Boonen; Jeffrey Chau; Delphine S Courvoisier; Jeffrey R Curtis; Benjamin Ellis; Sofia Ernestam; Laure Gossec; Christine Hale; Jennifer Hornjeff; Katy Y Y Leung; Merav Lidar; Phillip Mease; Kaleb Michaud; Girish M Mody; Mwidimi Ndosi; Christina H Opava; Geraldo R C Pinheiro; Matthew Salt; Enrique R Soriano; William J Taylor; Maria J H Voshaar; Angelique E A M Weel; Maarten de Wit; Nico Wulffraat; Mart A F J van de Laar; Harald E Vonkeman Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2019-12 Impact factor: 4.794