Jimmy T Le1, Susan Hutfless2, Tianjing Li1, Neil M Bressler3, James Heyward1, Ava K Bittner4, Adam Glassman5, Kay Dickersin1. 1. Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland. 2. Division of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. 3. Retina Division, Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland. 4. College of Optometry, Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. 5. Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network, Jaeb Center for Health Research, Tampa, Florida.
Abstract
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.
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.
Authors: Michael J Elman; Neil M Bressler; Haijing Qin; Roy W Beck; Frederick L Ferris; Scott M Friedman; Adam R Glassman; Ingrid U Scott; Cynthia R Stockdale; Jennifer K Sun Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2011-04 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Paula R Williamson; Douglas G Altman; Jane M Blazeby; Mike Clarke; Declan Devane; Elizabeth Gargon; Peter Tugwell Journal: Trials Date: 2012-08-06 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Kristina B Lindsley; Susan Hutfless; Barbara S Hawkins; Jill F Blim; Dan Roberts; Timothy W Olsen; Flora Lum; Kay Dickersin Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2018-11-01 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: Riaz Qureshi; Augusto Azuara-Blanco; Manuele Michelessi; Gianni Virgili; João Barbosa Breda; Carlo Alberto Cutolo; Marta Pazos; Andreas Katsanos; Gerhard Garhöfer; Miriam Kolko; Verena Prokosch-Willing; Ali Ahmed Al Rajhi; Flora Lum; David Musch; Steven Gedde; Tianjing Li Journal: Ophthalmol Glaucoma Date: 2021-02-09