Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30128539›Full record

ArticleJAMA ophthalmology2018

Evaluation of Clinical Questions and Patient-Important Outcomes Associated With the Treatment of Age-Related Macular Degeneration.

Kristina B Lindsley, Susan Hutfless, Barbara S Hawkins, Jill F Blim, Dan Roberts, Timothy W Olsen, Flora Lum, Kay Dickersin

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 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Kristina B LindsleyDepartment of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland.
Susan HutflessDivision of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Barbara S HawkinsDepartment of Ophthalmology, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Jill F BlimAmerican Society of Retina Specialists, Chicago, Illinois.
Dan RobertsMD (Macular Degeneration) Support, Grandview, Missouri.
Timothy W OlsenDepartment of Ophthalmology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Flora LumQuality and Data Science, American Academy of Ophthalmology, San Francisco, California.
Kay DickersinDepartment of Epidemiology, 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: Identifying and prioritizing unanswered clinical questions may help to best allocate limited resources for research associated with the treatment of age-related macular degeneration (AMD). Objective: To identify and prioritize clinical questions and outcomes for research associated with the treatment of AMD through engagement with professional and patient stakeholders. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multiple cross-sectional survey questions were used in a modified Delphi process for panel members of US and international organizations, the American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO) Retina/Vitreous Panel (n=7), health care professionals from the American Society of Retinal Specialists (ASRS) (n=90), Atlantic Coast Retina Conference (ACRC) and Macula 2017 meeting (n=34); and patients from MD (Macular Degeneration) Support (n=46). Data were collected from January 20, 2015, to January 9, 2017. Main Outcomes and Measures: The prioritizing of clinical questions and patient-important outcomes for AMD. Results: Seventy clinical questions were derived from the AAO Preferred Practice Patterns for AMD and suggestions by the AAO Retina/Vitreous Panel. The AAO Retina/Vitreous Panel assessed all 70 clinical questions and rated 17 of 70 questions (24%) as highly important. Health care professionals assessed the 17 highly important clinical questions and rated 12 of 17 questions (71%) as high priority for research to answer; 9 of 12 high-priority clinical questions were associated with aspects of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents. Patients assessed the 17 highly important clinical questions and rated all as high priority. Additionally, patients identified 6 of 33 outcomes (18%) as most important to them (choroidal neovascularization, development of advanced AMD, retinal hemorrhage, gain of vision, slowing vision loss, and serious ocular events). Conclusions and Relevance: Input from 4 stakeholder groups suggests good agreement on which 12 priority clinical questions can be used to underpin research related to the treatment of AMD. The 6 most important outcomes identified by patients were balanced between intended effects of AMD treatment (eg, slowing vision loss) and adverse events. Consideration of these patient-important outcomes may help to guide clinical care and future areas of research.

Indexed as

Patient Reported Outcome MeasuresAgedAged, 80 and overAngiogenesis InhibitorsChoroidal NeovascularizationCross-Sectional StudiesDelphi TechniqueFemaleHealth Care SurveysHumansIntravitreal InjectionsMacular DegenerationMaleSurveys and QuestionnairesVascular Endothelial Growth Factor AVisual AcuityAngiogenesis InhibitorsVascular Endothelial Growth Factor AVEGFA protein, human

Identifiers

PMID30128539
PMCPMC6248173

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.