Literature DB >> 32864194

Harmonization of Outcomes and Vision Endpoints in Vision Restoration Trials: Recommendations from the International HOVER Taskforce.

Lauren N Ayton1,2, Joseph F Rizzo3, Ian L Bailey4, August Colenbrander5, Gislin Dagnelie6, Duane R Geruschat6, Philip C Hessburg7, Chris D McCarthy8, Matthew A Petoe9, Gary S Rubin10, Philip R Troyk11.   

Abstract

Translational research in vision prosthetics, gene therapy, optogenetics, stem cell and other forms of transplantation, and sensory substitution is creating new therapeutic options for patients with neural forms of blindness. The technical challenges faced by each of these disciplines differ considerably, but they all face the same challenge of how to assess vision in patients with ultra-low vision (ULV), who will be the earliest subjects to receive new therapies. Historically, there were few tests to assess vision in ULV patients. In the 1990s, the field of visual prosthetics expanded rapidly, and this activity led to a heightened need to develop better tests to quantify end points for clinical studies. Each group tended to develop novel tests, which made it difficult to compare outcomes across groups. The common lack of validation of the tests and the variable use of controls added to the challenge of interpreting the outcomes of these clinical studies. In 2014, at the bi-annual International "Eye and the Chip" meeting of experts in the field of visual prosthetics, a group of interested leaders agreed to work cooperatively to develop the International Harmonization of Outcomes and Vision Endpoints in Vision Restoration Trials (HOVER) Taskforce. Under this banner, more than 80 specialists across seven topic areas joined an effort to formulate guidelines for performing and reporting psychophysical tests in humans who participate in clinical trials for visual restoration. This document provides the complete version of the consensus opinions from the HOVER taskforce, which, together with its rules of governance, will be posted on the website of the Henry Ford Department of Ophthalmology (www.artificialvision.org). Research groups or companies that choose to follow these guidelines are encouraged to include a specific statement to that effect in their communications to the public. The Executive Committee of the HOVER Taskforce will maintain a list of all human psychophysical research in the relevant fields of research on the same website to provide an overview of methods and outcomes of all clinical work being performed in an attempt to restore vision to the blind. This website will also specify which scientific publications contain the statement of certification. The website will be updated every 2 years and continue to exist as a living document of worldwide efforts to restore vision to the blind. The HOVER consensus document has been written by over 80 of the world's experts in vision restoration and low vision and provides recommendations on the measurement and reporting of patient outcomes in vision restoration trials. Copyright 2020 The Authors.

Entities:  

Keywords:  clinical endpoints; vision outcomes; vision restoration

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32864194      PMCID: PMC7426586          DOI: 10.1167/tvst.9.8.25

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol        ISSN: 2164-2591            Impact factor:   3.283


  138 in total

1.  Standardized assessment of reading performance: the New International Reading Speed Texts IReST.

Authors:  Susanne Trauzettel-Klosinski; Klaus Dietz
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2012-08-13       Impact factor: 4.799

2.  Creating a meaningful visual perception in blind volunteers by optic nerve stimulation.

Authors:  M E Brelén; F Duret; B Gérard; J Delbeke; C Veraart
Journal:  J Neural Eng       Date:  2005-02-22       Impact factor: 5.379

3.  Full-field stimulus testing (FST) to quantify visual perception in severely blind candidates for treatment trials.

Authors:  Alejandro J Roman; Artur V Cideciyan; Tomas S Aleman; Samuel G Jacobson
Journal:  Physiol Meas       Date:  2007-07-06       Impact factor: 2.833

Review 4.  Psychophysical evaluation for visual prosthesis.

Authors:  Gislin Dagnelie
Journal:  Annu Rev Biomed Eng       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 9.590

5.  Spatiotemporal interactions in the visual cortex following paired electrical stimulation of the retina.

Authors:  Rosemary Cicione; James B Fallon; Graeme D Rathbone; Chris E Williams; Mohit N Shivdasani
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2014-11-04       Impact factor: 4.799

6.  Vision test variability in retinitis pigmentosa and psychosocial factors.

Authors:  Ava K Bittner; Mohamed A Ibrahim; Jennifer A Haythornthwaite; Marie Diener-West; Gislin Dagnelie
Journal:  Optom Vis Sci       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 1.973

Review 7.  Item banking: a generational change in patient-reported outcome measurement.

Authors:  Konrad Pesudovs
Journal:  Optom Vis Sci       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 1.973

8.  Developing an instrumental activities of daily living tool as part of the low vision assessment of daily activities protocol.

Authors:  Robert P Finger; Shane C McSweeney; Lil Deverell; Fleur O'Hare; Sharon A Bentley; Chi D Luu; Robyn H Guymer; Lauren N Ayton
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2014-11-25       Impact factor: 4.799

9.  Developing the impact of Vision Impairment-Very Low Vision (IVI-VLV) questionnaire as part of the LoVADA protocol.

Authors:  Robert P Finger; Betty Tellis; Julie Crewe; Jill E Keeffe; Lauren N Ayton; Robyn H Guymer
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2014-09-04       Impact factor: 4.799

10.  Development of the Ultra-Low Vision Visual Functioning Questionnaire (ULV-VFQ).

Authors:  Pamela E Jeter; Collin Rozanski; Robert Massof; Olukemi Adeyemo; Gislin Dagnelie
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2017-05-31       Impact factor: 3.283

View more
  8 in total

Review 1.  Electrical devices for visual restoration.

Authors:  Tamara Sharf; Tej Kalakuntla; Darrin J Lee; Kimberly K Gokoffski
Journal:  Surv Ophthalmol       Date:  2021-09-04       Impact factor: 6.197

Review 2.  A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses of Interventional Clinical Trial Studies for Gene Therapies for the Inherited Retinal Degenerations (IRDs).

Authors:  Gearóid P Tuohy; Roly Megaw
Journal:  Biomolecules       Date:  2021-05-19

Review 3.  Bioengineering strategies for restoring vision.

Authors:  Jasmina Cehajic-Kapetanovic; Mandeep S Singh; Eberhart Zrenner; Robert E MacLaren
Journal:  Nat Biomed Eng       Date:  2022-01-31       Impact factor: 25.671

4.  Testing Vision Is Not Testing For Vision.

Authors:  Eli Peli
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2020-12-18       Impact factor: 3.283

5.  What do blind people "see" with retinal prostheses? Observations and qualitative reports of epiretinal implant users.

Authors:  Cordelia Erickson-Davis; Helma Korzybska
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-02-10       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Functional Vision in the Real-World Environment With a Second-Generation (44-Channel) Suprachoroidal Retinal Prosthesis.

Authors:  Lewis Karapanos; Carla J Abbott; Lauren N Ayton; Maria Kolic; Myra B McGuinness; Elizabeth K Baglin; Samuel A Titchener; Jessica Kvansakul; Dean Johnson; William G Kentler; Nick Barnes; David A X Nayagam; Penelope J Allen; Matthew A Petoe
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2021-08-12       Impact factor: 3.283

7.  A Second-Generation (44-Channel) Suprachoroidal Retinal Prosthesis: Interim Clinical Trial Results.

Authors:  Matthew A Petoe; Samuel A Titchener; Maria Kolic; William G Kentler; Carla J Abbott; David A X Nayagam; Elizabeth K Baglin; Jessica Kvansakul; Nick Barnes; Janine G Walker; Stephanie B Epp; Kiera A Young; Lauren N Ayton; Chi D Luu; Penelope J Allen
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2021-08-12       Impact factor: 3.283

8.  Factors affecting two-point discrimination in Argus II patients.

Authors:  Ezgi I Yücel; Roksana Sadeghi; Arathy Kartha; Sandra Rocio Montezuma; Gislin Dagnelie; Ariel Rokem; Geoffrey M Boynton; Ione Fine; Michael Beyeler
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2022-08-24       Impact factor: 5.152

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.