Comparison of clinical trial and systematic review outcomes for the 4 most prevalent eye diseases

Ian J. Saldanha, Kristina Lindsley, Diana V. Do, Roy S. Chuck, Catherine Meyerle, Leslie S. Jones, Anne L. Coleman, Henry D. Jampel, Kay Dickersin, Gianni Virgili

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

8 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: Suboptimal overlap in outcomes reported in clinical trials and systematic reviews compromises efforts to compare and summarize results across these studies. OBJECTIVES: To examine the most frequent outcomes used in trials and reviews of the 4 most prevalent eye diseases (age-related macular degeneration [AMD], cataract, diabetic retinopathy [DR], and glaucoma) and the overlap between outcomes in the reviews and the trials included in the reviews. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This cross-sectional study examined all Cochrane reviews that addressed AMD, cataract, DR, and glaucoma; were published as of July 20, 2016 and included at least 1 trial and the trials included in the reviews. For each disease, a pair of clinical experts independently classified all outcomes and resolved discrepancies. Outcomes (outcome domains) were then compared separately for each disease. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Proportion of review outcomes also reported in trials and vice versa. RESULTS: This study included 56 reviews that comprised 414 trials. Although the median number of outcomes per trial and per review was the same (n = 5) for each disease, the trials included a greater number of outcomes overall than did the reviews, ranging from 2.9 times greater (89 vs 30 outcomes for glaucoma) to 4.9 times greater (107 vs 22 outcomes for AMD). Most review outcomes, ranging from 14 of 19 outcomes (73.7%) (for DR) to 27 of 29 outcomes (93.1%) (for cataract), were also reported in the trials. For trial outcomes, however, the proportion also named in reviews was low, ranging from 19 of 107 outcomes (17.8%) (for AMD) to 24 of 89 outcomes (27.0%) (for glaucoma). Only 1 outcome (visual acuity) was consistently reported in greater than half the trials and greater than half the reviews. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Although most review outcomes were reported in the trials, most trial outcomes were not reported in the reviews. The current analysis focused on outcome domains, which might underestimate the problem of inconsistent outcomes. Other important elements of an outcome (ie, specific measurement, specific metric, method of aggregation, and time points) might have differed even though the domains overlapped. Inconsistency in trial outcomes may impede research synthesis and indicates the need for disease-specific core outcome sets in ophthalmology.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)933-940
Number of pages8
JournalJAMA Ophthalmology
Volume135
Issue number9
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 1 2017

Fingerprint

Eye Diseases
Macular Degeneration
Glaucoma
Diabetic Retinopathy
Clinical Trials
Cataract
Ophthalmology
Visual Acuity
Cross-Sectional Studies
Research

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ophthalmology

Cite this

Comparison of clinical trial and systematic review outcomes for the 4 most prevalent eye diseases. / Saldanha, Ian J.; Lindsley, Kristina; Do, Diana V.; Chuck, Roy S.; Meyerle, Catherine; Jones, Leslie S.; Coleman, Anne L.; Jampel, Henry D.; Dickersin, Kay; Virgili, Gianni.

In: JAMA Ophthalmology, Vol. 135, No. 9, 01.09.2017, p. 933-940.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Saldanha, IJ, Lindsley, K, Do, DV, Chuck, RS, Meyerle, C, Jones, LS, Coleman, AL, Jampel, HD, Dickersin, K & Virgili, G 2017, 'Comparison of clinical trial and systematic review outcomes for the 4 most prevalent eye diseases', JAMA Ophthalmology, vol. 135, no. 9, pp. 933-940. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2017.2583
Saldanha, Ian J. ; Lindsley, Kristina ; Do, Diana V. ; Chuck, Roy S. ; Meyerle, Catherine ; Jones, Leslie S. ; Coleman, Anne L. ; Jampel, Henry D. ; Dickersin, Kay ; Virgili, Gianni. / Comparison of clinical trial and systematic review outcomes for the 4 most prevalent eye diseases. In: JAMA Ophthalmology. 2017 ; Vol. 135, No. 9. pp. 933-940.
@article{14ba283fbcc44318afffb64dbae6a3e4,
title = "Comparison of clinical trial and systematic review outcomes for the 4 most prevalent eye diseases",
abstract = "IMPORTANCE: Suboptimal overlap in outcomes reported in clinical trials and systematic reviews compromises efforts to compare and summarize results across these studies. OBJECTIVES: To examine the most frequent outcomes used in trials and reviews of the 4 most prevalent eye diseases (age-related macular degeneration [AMD], cataract, diabetic retinopathy [DR], and glaucoma) and the overlap between outcomes in the reviews and the trials included in the reviews. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This cross-sectional study examined all Cochrane reviews that addressed AMD, cataract, DR, and glaucoma; were published as of July 20, 2016 and included at least 1 trial and the trials included in the reviews. For each disease, a pair of clinical experts independently classified all outcomes and resolved discrepancies. Outcomes (outcome domains) were then compared separately for each disease. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Proportion of review outcomes also reported in trials and vice versa. RESULTS: This study included 56 reviews that comprised 414 trials. Although the median number of outcomes per trial and per review was the same (n = 5) for each disease, the trials included a greater number of outcomes overall than did the reviews, ranging from 2.9 times greater (89 vs 30 outcomes for glaucoma) to 4.9 times greater (107 vs 22 outcomes for AMD). Most review outcomes, ranging from 14 of 19 outcomes (73.7{\%}) (for DR) to 27 of 29 outcomes (93.1{\%}) (for cataract), were also reported in the trials. For trial outcomes, however, the proportion also named in reviews was low, ranging from 19 of 107 outcomes (17.8{\%}) (for AMD) to 24 of 89 outcomes (27.0{\%}) (for glaucoma). Only 1 outcome (visual acuity) was consistently reported in greater than half the trials and greater than half the reviews. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Although most review outcomes were reported in the trials, most trial outcomes were not reported in the reviews. The current analysis focused on outcome domains, which might underestimate the problem of inconsistent outcomes. Other important elements of an outcome (ie, specific measurement, specific metric, method of aggregation, and time points) might have differed even though the domains overlapped. Inconsistency in trial outcomes may impede research synthesis and indicates the need for disease-specific core outcome sets in ophthalmology.",
author = "Saldanha, {Ian J.} and Kristina Lindsley and Do, {Diana V.} and Chuck, {Roy S.} and Catherine Meyerle and Jones, {Leslie S.} and Coleman, {Anne L.} and Jampel, {Henry D.} and Kay Dickersin and Gianni Virgili",
year = "2017",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2017.2583",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "135",
pages = "933--940",
journal = "JAMA Ophthalmology",
issn = "2168-6165",
publisher = "American Medical Association",
number = "9",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of clinical trial and systematic review outcomes for the 4 most prevalent eye diseases

AU - Saldanha, Ian J.

AU - Lindsley, Kristina

AU - Do, Diana V.

AU - Chuck, Roy S.

AU - Meyerle, Catherine

AU - Jones, Leslie S.

AU - Coleman, Anne L.

AU - Jampel, Henry D.

AU - Dickersin, Kay

AU - Virgili, Gianni

PY - 2017/9/1

Y1 - 2017/9/1

N2 - IMPORTANCE: Suboptimal overlap in outcomes reported in clinical trials and systematic reviews compromises efforts to compare and summarize results across these studies. OBJECTIVES: To examine the most frequent outcomes used in trials and reviews of the 4 most prevalent eye diseases (age-related macular degeneration [AMD], cataract, diabetic retinopathy [DR], and glaucoma) and the overlap between outcomes in the reviews and the trials included in the reviews. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This cross-sectional study examined all Cochrane reviews that addressed AMD, cataract, DR, and glaucoma; were published as of July 20, 2016 and included at least 1 trial and the trials included in the reviews. For each disease, a pair of clinical experts independently classified all outcomes and resolved discrepancies. Outcomes (outcome domains) were then compared separately for each disease. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Proportion of review outcomes also reported in trials and vice versa. RESULTS: This study included 56 reviews that comprised 414 trials. Although the median number of outcomes per trial and per review was the same (n = 5) for each disease, the trials included a greater number of outcomes overall than did the reviews, ranging from 2.9 times greater (89 vs 30 outcomes for glaucoma) to 4.9 times greater (107 vs 22 outcomes for AMD). Most review outcomes, ranging from 14 of 19 outcomes (73.7%) (for DR) to 27 of 29 outcomes (93.1%) (for cataract), were also reported in the trials. For trial outcomes, however, the proportion also named in reviews was low, ranging from 19 of 107 outcomes (17.8%) (for AMD) to 24 of 89 outcomes (27.0%) (for glaucoma). Only 1 outcome (visual acuity) was consistently reported in greater than half the trials and greater than half the reviews. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Although most review outcomes were reported in the trials, most trial outcomes were not reported in the reviews. The current analysis focused on outcome domains, which might underestimate the problem of inconsistent outcomes. Other important elements of an outcome (ie, specific measurement, specific metric, method of aggregation, and time points) might have differed even though the domains overlapped. Inconsistency in trial outcomes may impede research synthesis and indicates the need for disease-specific core outcome sets in ophthalmology.

AB - IMPORTANCE: Suboptimal overlap in outcomes reported in clinical trials and systematic reviews compromises efforts to compare and summarize results across these studies. OBJECTIVES: To examine the most frequent outcomes used in trials and reviews of the 4 most prevalent eye diseases (age-related macular degeneration [AMD], cataract, diabetic retinopathy [DR], and glaucoma) and the overlap between outcomes in the reviews and the trials included in the reviews. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This cross-sectional study examined all Cochrane reviews that addressed AMD, cataract, DR, and glaucoma; were published as of July 20, 2016 and included at least 1 trial and the trials included in the reviews. For each disease, a pair of clinical experts independently classified all outcomes and resolved discrepancies. Outcomes (outcome domains) were then compared separately for each disease. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Proportion of review outcomes also reported in trials and vice versa. RESULTS: This study included 56 reviews that comprised 414 trials. Although the median number of outcomes per trial and per review was the same (n = 5) for each disease, the trials included a greater number of outcomes overall than did the reviews, ranging from 2.9 times greater (89 vs 30 outcomes for glaucoma) to 4.9 times greater (107 vs 22 outcomes for AMD). Most review outcomes, ranging from 14 of 19 outcomes (73.7%) (for DR) to 27 of 29 outcomes (93.1%) (for cataract), were also reported in the trials. For trial outcomes, however, the proportion also named in reviews was low, ranging from 19 of 107 outcomes (17.8%) (for AMD) to 24 of 89 outcomes (27.0%) (for glaucoma). Only 1 outcome (visual acuity) was consistently reported in greater than half the trials and greater than half the reviews. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Although most review outcomes were reported in the trials, most trial outcomes were not reported in the reviews. The current analysis focused on outcome domains, which might underestimate the problem of inconsistent outcomes. Other important elements of an outcome (ie, specific measurement, specific metric, method of aggregation, and time points) might have differed even though the domains overlapped. Inconsistency in trial outcomes may impede research synthesis and indicates the need for disease-specific core outcome sets in ophthalmology.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85029553283&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85029553283&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2017.2583

DO - 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2017.2583

M3 - Article

C2 - 28772305

AN - SCOPUS:85029553283

VL - 135

SP - 933

EP - 940

JO - JAMA Ophthalmology

JF - JAMA Ophthalmology

SN - 2168-6165

IS - 9

ER -