Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28914633›Full record

ReviewCornea2017

Gaps in Current Knowledge and Priorities for Future Research in Dry Eye.

Ian J Saldanha, Kay Dickersin, Susan T Hutfless, Esen K Akpek

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cornea, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Topical corticosteroids for dry eye.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Topical cyclosporine A therapy for dry eye syndrome.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Ian J SaldanhaDepartments of *Epidemiology; and †Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD; ‡Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; and §Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD.
Kay Dickersin
Susan T Hutfless
Esen K Akpek

Funding

Maximizing Use of High-Quality Evidence in Eye Care: Cochrane Eyes and Vision US ProjectUG1EY020522 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER · PI Tianjing Li · 2017 to 2026
$10.1M
Comparative Effectiveness Research & the Cochrane Eyes & Vision GroupU01EY020522 · NEI · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI DICKERSIN, KAY · 2010 to 2016
$9.2M
Comparative Effectiveness & Medical Interventions for Primary Open Angle GlaucomaRC1EY020140 · NEI · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI DICKERSIN, KAY · 2009 to 2010
$901k
COCHRANE EYE AND VISION GROUP-COORDINATING RESOURCE CENTER-260021003N01EY021003 · NEI · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI DICKERSIN, KAY · 2006 to 2006
–
NEI NIH HHS N01 EY021003NEI NIH HHS RC1 EY020140NEI NIH HHS U01 EY020522NEI NIH HHS UG1 EY020522
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeDry eye, a common yet underrecognized and evolving field, has few recommended treatment algorithms, mostly based on expert consensus rather than robust research evidence. There are high costs associated with managing dry eye and conducting research to identify effective and safe long-term treatments. To support evidence-based management of dry eye, our purpose was to identify and prioritize important clinical research questions for future clinical research.

methodsWe translated recommendations from the American Academy of Ophthalmology's 2013 Preferred Practice Patterns for dry eye into answerable clinical research questions about treatment effectiveness. Clinicians around the world who manage patients with dry eye rated each question's importance from 0 (not important) to 10 (very important) using a 2-round online Delphi survey. We considered questions as "important" if ≥75% of respondents assigned a rating of 6 or more in round 2. We mapped the identified important clinical research questions to reliable systematic reviews published up to March 2016.

resultsSeventy-five clinicians from at least 21 countries completed both Delphi rounds. Among the 58 questions, 24 met our definition of "important": 9/24 and 7/24 addressed topical and systemic treatments, respectively. All 4 questions with the highest 25th percentiles addressed topical treatments. Although 6/24 "important" questions were associated with 4 existing reliable systematic reviews, none of these reviews came to a definitive conclusion about treatment effectiveness.

conclusionsWe identified gaps pertaining to treatment options for dry eye. Future clinical research on the management of dry eye should strongly consider these prioritized questions.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeCyclosporineDietary SupplementsDry Eye SyndromesFatty Acids, Omega-3HumansLubricant Eye DropsOphthalmologyCyclosporineFatty Acids, Omega-3Lubricant Eye Drops

Identifiers

PMID28914633
PMCPMC5678755

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.