Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29800249›Full record

ArticleJAMA ophthalmology2018

Identification and Description of Reliable Evidence for 2016 American Academy of Ophthalmology Preferred Practice Pattern Guidelines for Cataract in the Adult Eye.

Asieh Golozar, Yujiang Chen, Kristina Lindsley, Benjamin Rouse, David C Musch, Flora Lum, Barbara S Hawkins, Tianjing Li

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA ophthalmology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Exploring the Protective Effect and Mechanism ofEvidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2022
    Article
  14. Does Ophthalmology Need Philosophy?Turkish journal of ophthalmology · 2021
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Asieh GolozarDepartment of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland.
Yujiang ChenDepartment of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland.
Kristina LindsleyDepartment of Epidemiology, Center for Clinical Trials and Evidence Synthesis, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland.
Benjamin RouseDepartment of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland.
David C MuschDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Flora LumAmerican Academy of Ophthalmology, San Francisco, California.
Barbara S HawkinsDepartment of Epidemiology, Center for Clinical Trials and Evidence Synthesis, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland.
Tianjing LiDepartment of Epidemiology, Center for Clinical Trials and Evidence Synthesis, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland.

Funding

Comparative Effectiveness Research & the Cochrane Eyes & Vision GroupU01EY020522 · NEI · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI DICKERSIN, KAY · 2010 to 2016
$9.2M
NEI NIH HHS U01 EY020522
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Trustworthy clinical practice guidelines require reliable systematic reviews of the evidence to support recommendations. Since 2016, the American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO) has partnered with Cochrane Eyes and Vision US Satellite to update their guidelines, the Preferred Practice Patterns (PPP). Objective: To describe experiences and findings related to identifying reliable systematic reviews that support topics likely to be addressed in the 2016 update of the 2011 AAO PPP guidelines on cataract in the adult eye. Design, Setting, and Participants: Cross-sectional study. Systematic reviews on the management of cataract were searched for in an established database. Each relevant systematic review was mapped to 1 or more of the 24 management categories listed under the Management section of the table of contents of the 2011 AAO PPP guidelines. Data were extracted to determine the reliability of each systematic review using prespecified criteria, and the reliable systematic reviews were examined to find whether they were referenced in the 2016 AAO PPP guidelines. For comparison, we assessed whether the reliable systematic reviews published before February 2010 the last search date of the 2011 AAO PPP guidelines were referenced in the 2011 AAO PPP guidelines. Cochrane Eyes and Vision US Satellite did not provide systematic reviews to the AAO during the development of the 2011 AAO PPP guidelines. Main Outcomes and Measures: Systematic review reliability was defined by reporting eligibility criteria, performing a comprehensive literature search, assessing methodologic quality of included studies, using appropriate methods for meta-analysis, and basing conclusions on review findings. Results: From 99 systematic reviews on management of cataract, 46 (46%) were classified as reliable. No evidence that a comprehensive search had been conducted was the most common reason a review was classified as unreliable. All 46 reliable systematic reviews were cited in the 2016 AAO PPP guidelines, and 8 of 15 available reliable reviews (53%) were cited in the 2011 PPP guidelines. Conclusions and Relevance: The partnership between Cochrane Eyes and Vision US Satellite and the AAO provides the AAO access to an evidence base of relevant and reliable systematic reviews, thereby supporting robust and efficient clinical practice guidelines development to improve the quality of eye care.

Indexed as

Academies and InstitutesAdultCataractCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleOphthalmologyPractice Guidelines as TopicPractice Patterns, Physicians'Reproducibility of ResultsSystematic Reviews as TopicUnited States

Identifiers

PMID29800249
PMCPMC6145658

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.