Kristina B Lindsley1,2, Susan Hutfless3, Barbara S Hawkins4, Jill F Blim5, Dan Roberts6, Timothy W Olsen7,8, Flora Lum9, Kay Dickersin1,10. 1. Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland. 2. Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands. 3. Division of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. 4. Department of Ophthalmology, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. 5. American Society of Retina Specialists, Chicago, Illinois. 6. MD (Macular Degeneration) Support, Grandview, Missouri. 7. Department of Ophthalmology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. 8. Preferred Practice Pattern Retina/Vitreous Panel and Secretary for Quality of Care, American Academy of Ophthalmology. 9. Quality and Data Science, American Academy of Ophthalmology, San Francisco, California. 10. Reviews Editor.
Abstract
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.
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.
Authors: Jimmy T Le; Susan Hutfless; Tianjing Li; Neil M Bressler; James Heyward; Ava K Bittner; Adam Glassman; Kay Dickersin Journal: Ophthalmol Retina Date: 2017 Mar-Apr
Authors: Paula R Williamson; Douglas G Altman; Heather Bagley; Karen L Barnes; Jane M Blazeby; Sara T Brookes; Mike Clarke; Elizabeth Gargon; Sarah Gorst; Nicola Harman; Jamie J Kirkham; Angus McNair; Cecilia A C Prinsen; Jochen Schmitt; Caroline B Terwee; Bridget Young Journal: Trials Date: 2017-06-20 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: David S Friedman; Benita J O'Colmain; Beatriz Muñoz; Sandra C Tomany; Cathy McCarty; Paulus T V M de Jong; Barbara Nemesure; Paul Mitchell; John Kempen Journal: Arch Ophthalmol Date: 2004-04
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: Evan Mayo-Wilson; Asieh Golozar; Terrie Cowley; Nicole Fusco; Gillian Gresham; Jennifer Haythornthwaite; Elizabeth Tolbert; Jennifer L Payne; Lori Rosman; Susan Hutfless; Joseph K Canner; Kay Dickersin Journal: Pilot Feasibility Stud Date: 2018-06-12
Authors: Jacqueline Ramke; Jennifer R Evans; Esmael Habtamu; Nyawira Mwangi; Juan Carlos Silva; Bonnielin K Swenor; Nathan Congdon; Hannah B Faal; Allen Foster; David S Friedman; Stephen Gichuhi; Jost B Jonas; Peng T Khaw; Fatima Kyari; Gudlavalleti V S Murthy; Ningli Wang; Tien Y Wong; Richard Wormald; Mayinuer Yusufu; Hugh Taylor; Serge Resnikoff; Sheila K West; Matthew J Burton Journal: Lancet Healthy Longev Date: 2022-01
Authors: Victoria I Barbeau; Leen Madani; Abdulah Al Ameer; Elizabeth Tanjong Ghogomu; Deirdre Beecher; Monserrat Conde; Tracey E Howe; Sue Marcus; Richard Morley; Mona Nasser; Maureen Smith; Jo Thompson Coon; Vivian A Welch Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-09-19 Impact factor: 3.006