Literature DB >> 33571689

What Do We Really Know about the Effectiveness of Glaucoma Interventions?: An Overview of Systematic Reviews.

Riaz Qureshi1, Augusto Azuara-Blanco2, Manuele Michelessi3, Gianni Virgili4, João Barbosa Breda5, Carlo Alberto Cutolo6, Marta Pazos7, Andreas Katsanos8, Gerhard Garhöfer9, Miriam Kolko10, Verena Prokosch-Willing11, Ali Ahmed Al Rajhi12, Flora Lum12, David Musch13, Steven Gedde14, Tianjing Li15.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To identify systematic reviews of interventions for glaucoma conditions and to assess their reliability, thereby generating a list of potentially reliable reviews for updating glaucoma practice guidelines.
DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. PARTICIPANTS: Systematic reviews of interventions for glaucoma conditions.
METHODS: We used a database of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in vision research and eye care maintained by the Cochrane Eyes and Vision United States Satellite. We examined all Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions for glaucoma conditions published before August 7, 2019, and all non-Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions for glaucoma conditions published between January 1, 2014, and August 7, 2019. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We assessed eligible reviews for reliability, extracted characteristics, and summarized key findings from reviews classified as reliable.
RESULTS: Of the 4451 systematic reviews in eyes and vision identified, 129 met our eligibility criteria and were assessed for reliability. Of these, we classified 49 (38%) as reliable. We found open-angle glaucoma (22/49) to be the condition with the most reviews and medical management (17/49) and intraocular pressure (IOP; 43/49) to be the most common interventions and outcomes studied. Most reviews found a high degree of uncertainty in the evidence, which hinders the possibility of making strong recommendations in guidelines. These reviews found high-certainty evidence about a few topics: reducing IOP helps to prevent glaucoma and its progression, prostaglandin analogs are the most effective medical treatment for lowering IOP, laser trabeculoplasty is as effective as medical treatment as a first-line therapy in controlling IOP, the use of IOP-lowering medications in the perioperative or postoperative periods to accompany laser (e.g., trabeculoplasty) reduces the risk of postoperative IOP spikes, conventional surgery (i.e., trabeculectomy) is more effective than medications in reducing IOP, and antimetabolites and β-radiation improve IOP control after trabeculectomy. The evidence is weak regarding the effectiveness of minimally invasive glaucoma surgeries.
CONCLUSIONS: Most systematic reviews evaluating interventions for glaucoma are of poor reliability. Even among those that may be considered reliable, important limitations exist in the value of information because of the uncertainty of the evidence as well as small and sometimes unimportant clinical differences between interventions.
Copyright © 2021 American Academy of Ophthalmology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Evidence-based medicine; Glaucoma; Guideline development; Systematic reviews

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33571689      PMCID: PMC8349936          DOI: 10.1016/j.ogla.2021.01.007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ophthalmol Glaucoma        ISSN: 2589-4196


  38 in total

1.  What comparative effectiveness research is needed? A framework for using guidelines and systematic reviews to identify evidence gaps and research priorities.

Authors:  Tianjing Li; S Swaroop Vedula; Roberta Scherer; Kay Dickersin
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2012-03-06       Impact factor: 25.391

2.  An evidence-based approach to evaluating and improving clinical practice: implementing practice guidelines.

Authors:  M R Handley; M E Stuart; H L Kirz
Journal:  HMO Pract       Date:  1994-06

3.  Setting Priorities for Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research and Identifying Evidence Gaps.

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

4.  GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations.

Authors:  Gordon H Guyatt; Andrew D Oxman; Gunn E Vist; Regina Kunz; Yngve Falck-Ytter; Pablo Alonso-Coello; Holger J Schünemann
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2008-04-26

5.  A randomized trial provided new evidence on the accuracy and efficiency of traditional vs. electronically annotated abstraction approaches in systematic reviews.

Authors:  Tianjing Li; Ian J Saldanha; Jens Jap; Bryant T Smith; Joseph Canner; Susan M Hutfless; Vernal Branch; Simona Carini; Wiley Chan; Berry de Bruijn; Byron C Wallace; Sandra A Walsh; Elizabeth J Whamond; M Hassan Murad; Ida Sim; Jesse A Berlin; Joseph Lau; Kay Dickersin; Christopher H Schmid
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2019-07-11       Impact factor: 6.437

Review 6.  The COMET Handbook: version 1.0.

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

7.  The GRADE approach is reproducible in assessing the quality of evidence of quantitative evidence syntheses.

Authors:  Reem A Mustafa; Nancy Santesso; Jan Brozek; Elie A Akl; Stephen D Walter; Geoff Norman; Mahan Kulasegaram; Robin Christensen; Gordon H Guyatt; Yngve Falck-Ytter; Stephanie Chang; Mohammad Hassan Murad; Gunn E Vist; Toby Lasserson; Gerald Gartlehner; Vijay Shukla; Xin Sun; Craig Whittington; Piet N Post; Eddy Lang; Kylie Thaler; Ilkka Kunnamo; Heidi Alenius; Joerg J Meerpohl; Ana C Alba; Immaculate F Nevis; Stephen Gentles; Marie-Chantal Ethier; Alonso Carrasco-Labra; Rasha Khatib; Gihad Nesrallah; Jamie Kroft; Amanda Selk; Romina Brignardello-Petersen; Holger J Schünemann
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2013-04-23       Impact factor: 6.437

8.  Reliability of the Evidence Addressing Treatment of Corneal Diseases: A Summary of Systematic Reviews.

Authors:  Ian J Saldanha; Kristina B Lindsley; Flora Lum; Kay Dickersin; Tianjing Li
Journal:  JAMA Ophthalmol       Date:  2019-07-01       Impact factor: 7.389

9.  Interventions for Age-Related Macular Degeneration: Are Practice Guidelines Based on Systematic Reviews?

Authors:  Kristina Lindsley; Tianjing Li; Elizabeth Ssemanda; Gianni Virgili; Kay Dickersin
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  2016-01-22       Impact factor: 12.079

10.  Methods and impact of engagement in research, from theory to practice and back again: early findings from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.

Authors:  Laura Forsythe; Andrea Heckert; Mary Kay Margolis; Suzanne Schrandt; Lori Frank
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2017-05-12       Impact factor: 4.147

View more
  2 in total

1.  Effectiveness of interventions for dry eye: a protocol for an overview of systematic reviews.

Authors:  Paul McCann; Zanna Kruoch; Riaz Qureshi; Tianjing Li
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2022-06-07       Impact factor: 3.006

2.  Development and content of a database of systematic reviews for eyes and vision.

Authors:  Jimmy T Lê; Riaz Qureshi; Benjamin Rouse; Claire Twose; Lori Rosman; Kristina Lindsley; Barbara S Hawkins; Tianjing Li
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2021-04-06       Impact factor: 3.775

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.