ArticleEye (London, England)2026
Defining a standards framework for ophthalmology real-world data methodologies through an expert-led Delphi consensus.
Article in Eye (London, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesReal-world data (RWD) is becoming increasingly important in ophthalmology, offering insights into clinical outcomes, therapeutic approaches, and healthcare practices. However, methodological variability limits comparability and generalisability across RWD studies. This Delphi consensus aimed to establish expert agreement on the need for standardised methodologies in ophthalmology RWD studies, identify the key clinical and patient-reported data elements that should be collected, and explore strategies for consistent implementation.
methodsA modified Delphi methodology was followed. A steering committee (SC) of three ophthalmologists developed 38 consensus statements across five key topics. These statements were developed into an online four-point Likert scale survey and distributed to healthcare professionals experienced in managing retinal diseases via members of The Ophthalmology Network. Consensus was defined a priori as ≥75% agreement. Results were shared with the SC and key recommendations were discussed.
resultsA total of 244 responses were received, predominantly from retina specialists (n = 232, 95%), with broad representation across six regions, the largest being Europe (n = 116, 48%). Consensus was achieved for all 38 statements, with 36 (95%) reaching ≥90%. These statements covered key principles, including: variability of current standards, ideal clinical standards for RWD collection, RWD analysis methodology, ideal patient-reported standards, and implementing and reporting consistent standards/frameworks. As the stopping criteria were met, no further Delphi rounds were conducted. Eight key recommendations were developed.
conclusionsThe outputs from this consensus aim to guide future ophthalmology RWD studies towards improved consistency, reliability, and generalisability, ultimately strengthening the evidence base for clinical decision-making to improve patient outcomes.
Indexed as
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.