J E A Somner1, R Ismail2, R Froud3,4, A Azuara-Blanco5, A J King6. 1. Vision and Eye Research Unit, Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge Campus, Young Street, Cambridge, CB1 2LZ, UK. 2. Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. 3. Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK. 4. Kristiania University College, Oslo, Norway. 5. Centre for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK. 6. Nottingham University Hospital, Nottingham, NG7 2UH, UK. anthony.king@nottingham.ac.uk.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To identify the key set of glaucoma surgery outcome measures considered most important and practical to collect by glaucoma specialists. METHODS: One hundred two glaucoma specialists (57 members of the UK and Eire Glaucoma Society (UKEGS) and 45 members of the European Glaucoma society (EGS)) took part in an Online Delphi exercise. The RAND/UCLA appropriateness method was used analyse data from each round and generate a disagreement index. RESULTS: Participants agreed on 13 baseline data points and 12 outcomes that were considered important and practical to collect. For intraocular pressure (IOP) percentage reduction in IOP from baseline (last three IOP readings pre-op) and reduction below a specified target were considered important. For visual fields, change in a global visual field index, e.g. MD, and development of progression as assessed by linear regression were considered important. From a safety perspective, any visual loss resulting in a doubling of the minimal angle of resolution, loss of 5 dB or more of visual field or development of advanced field loss (Hodapp Parrish Anderson Stage 4) was considered important. The importance of routinely using patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) was highlighted. Consensus suggested that outcomes of glaucoma treatments should be reported at 1, 5 and 10 years. CONCLUSIONS: There was broad consensus on a minimum dataset for reporting the outcomes of glaucoma surgery and outcome measurement intervals.
PURPOSE: To identify the key set of glaucoma surgery outcome measures considered most important and practical to collect by glaucoma specialists. METHODS: One hundred two glaucoma specialists (57 members of the UK and Eire Glaucoma Society (UKEGS) and 45 members of the European Glaucoma society (EGS)) took part in an Online Delphi exercise. The RAND/UCLA appropriateness method was used analyse data from each round and generate a disagreement index. RESULTS:Participants agreed on 13 baseline data points and 12 outcomes that were considered important and practical to collect. For intraocular pressure (IOP) percentage reduction in IOP from baseline (last three IOP readings pre-op) and reduction below a specified target were considered important. For visual fields, change in a global visual field index, e.g. MD, and development of progression as assessed by linear regression were considered important. From a safety perspective, any visual loss resulting in a doubling of the minimal angle of resolution, loss of 5 dB or more of visual field or development of advanced field loss (Hodapp Parrish Anderson Stage 4) was considered important. The importance of routinely using patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) was highlighted. Consensus suggested that outcomes of glaucoma treatments should be reported at 1, 5 and 10 years. CONCLUSIONS: There was broad consensus on a minimum dataset for reporting the outcomes of glaucoma surgery and outcome measurement intervals.
Authors: Noah Ivers; Gro Jamtvedt; Signe Flottorp; Jane M Young; Jan Odgaard-Jensen; Simon D French; Mary Ann O'Brien; Marit Johansen; Jeremy Grimshaw; Andrew D Oxman Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2012-06-13
Authors: Timothy L Jackson; Robert L Johnston; Paul H J Donachie; Tom H Williamson; John M Sparrow; David H W Steel Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: Jordan B Sparks; Mandi L Klamerus; Tanner J Caverly; Sarah E Skurla; Timothy P Hofer; Eve A Kerr; Steven J Bernstein; Laura J Damschroder Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2022-08-26 Impact factor: 7.076
Authors: Nathan A Pearson; Elizabeth Tutton; Alexander Joeris; Stephen Gwilym; Richard Grant; David J Keene; Kirstie L Haywood Journal: Trials Date: 2021-07-12 Impact factor: 2.279