ArticleOphthalmology. Retina
Setting Priorities for Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research and Identifying Evidence Gaps.
Article in Ophthalmology. Retina. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Identifying important questions for Cochrane systematic reviews in Eyes and Vision: Report of a priority setting exercise.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2023Article
- Optical Coherence Tomography Combined with Fluorescein Fundus Angiography under Intelligent Algorithm to Evaluate the Clinical Efficacy of Ranibizumab Combined with Panretinal Photocoagulation in the Treatment of Macular Edema of Diabetic Retinopathy Patients.Computational and mathematical methods in medicine · 2022Article
- Sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors and diabetic retinopathy: insights into preservation of sight and looking beyond.Cardiovascular endocrinology & metabolism · 2021 · on this mapReview
- Cochrane Eyes and Vision: a perspective introducing Cochrane Corner in Eye.Eye (London, England) · 2019Review
- Evaluation of Clinical Questions and Patient-Important Outcomes Associated With the Treatment of Age-Related Macular Degeneration.JAMA ophthalmology · 2018Article
- The past, present and future management of sickle cell retinopathy within an African context.Eye (London, England) · 2018Review
- Review
- What Do We Really Know about the Effectiveness of Glaucoma Interventions?: An Overview of Systematic Reviews.Ophthalmology. GlaucomaReview
- miR-142-5p regulates the progression of diabetic retinopathy by targeting IGF1.International journal of immunopathology and pharmacologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposePrioritizing 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).
designCross-sectional study.
participantsDiabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network (DRCR.net) investigators.
methodsWe 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 measureRanking of importance of each clinical question.
resultsThirty-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.
conclusionsA 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.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.