Article

Setting Priorities for Comparative Effectiveness Research: A Case Study Using Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma

Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland 21205, USA.
Ophthalmology (Impact Factor: 6.17). 10/2010; 117(10):1937-45. DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2010.07.004
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To test the feasibility of a framework for prioritizing new comparative effectiveness research (CER) questions related to management of primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) using practice guidelines and a survey of clinicians.
Cross-sectional survey.
Members of the American Glaucoma Society (AGS).
We restated as an answerable clinical question each recommendation in the 2005 American Academy of Ophthalmology Preferred Practice Patterns (PPPs) regarding the management of POAG. We asked members of the AGS to rank the importance of each clinical question, on a scale of 0 (not important at all) to 10 (very important), using a 2-round Delphi survey conducted online between April and September 2008. Respondents had the option of selecting "no judgment" or "research has already answered this question" to each question in lieu of the 0 to 10 rating. We used the ratings assigned by the Delphi respondents to determine the importance of each clinical question.
Ranking of importance of each clinical question.
We derived 45 clinical questions from the POAG PPPs. Of the 620 AGS members invited to participate in the survey, 169 completed the Round 1 survey; 105 of 169 also completed Round 2. We observed 4 response patterns to the individual questions. Nine clinical questions were ranked as the most important: 4 questions on medical intervention, 4 questions on filtering surgery, and 1 question on adjustment of therapy.
Our theoretical model for priority setting for CER questions is a feasible and pragmatic approach that merits testing in other medical settings.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Roberta W Scherer, Jul 29, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
89 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The objective of this study was to determine current practices and opinions among cornea specialists for treating and preventing recurrences of herpes zoster ophthalmicus (HZO). In November 2010, a survey of 15 questions was distributed to The Cornea Society listserv. Questions identified respondents' treatment practices for recurrent HZO and opinions regarding prolonged antiviral prophylaxis and zoster vaccine. Of 100 respondents, the majority were cornea specialists (83 of 98, 85%). Eighty-seven percent (84 of 97) reported treating recurrent or chronic cases of HZO in the last year. The most common choice of treatment in the posed recurrent HZO clinical scenario was a combination of oral antiviral and topical corticosteroid (63 of 100, 63%), although significant variability existed in the duration of oral antiviral administration. Fifty-four respondents (56%) believed that prolonged acyclovir prophylaxis could reduce recurrent signs of HZO; 28% (27 of 98) believed that recurrences of HZO could be reduced after the period of acyclovir administration. For patients with a history of HZO, most respondents reported not recommending the adult zoster vaccine (63 of 98, 64%), but 46% (43 of 94) believed that the vaccine could reduce recurrent signs or did not know. Many cornea specialists are managing recurrent or chronic cases of HZO, but there is variability in the use of topical corticosteroids and antivirals. Additionally, no consensus exists on the efficacy of prolonged antiviral therapy or the adult zoster vaccine to reduce chronic or recurrent disease. These results demonstrate the need for further systematic study of treatment and prophylaxis for recurrent and chronic HZO.
    Cornea 01/2012; 31(7):786-90. DOI:10.1097/ICO.0b013e31823cbe6a · 2.36 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The authors developed and tested a framework for identifying evidence gaps and prioritizing comparative effectiveness research by using a combination of clinical practice guidelines and systematic reviews. In phase 1 of the project, reported elsewhere, 45 clinical questions on the management of primary open-angle glaucoma were derived from practice guidelines and prioritized by using a 2-round Delphi survey of clinicians. On the basis of the clinicians' responses, 9 questions were classified as high-priority. In phase 2, reported here, systematic reviews that addressed the 45 clinical questions were identified. The reviews were classified as at low, high, or unclear risk of bias, and evidence gaps (in which no systematic review was at low risk of bias) were identified. The following comparative effectiveness research agenda is proposed: Two of the 9 high-priority questions require new primary research (such as a randomized, controlled trial) and 4 require a new systematic review. The utility and limitations of the framework and future adaptations are discussed.
    Annals of internal medicine 03/2012; 156(5):367-77. DOI:10.1059/0003-4819-156-5-201203060-00009 · 16.10 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the presence and effectiveness of existing systems of prioritization for Cochrane review topics and to explore methods of improving those systems. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We surveyed groups of Cochrane review authors and recorded any evidence of their use of priority-setting processes or policies. To evaluate the effectiveness of the policies we encountered, we assessed them using two frameworks from the literature: "Accountability for Reasonableness" (1) and Sibbald's 2009 framework (2) for successful priority setting. We then held two workshops with the subject groups to discuss our findings and their implications. RESULTS: Of the 66 groups surveyed, 29 had a system in place to inform the selection or prioritization of topics for Cochrane reviews. Fifteen groups used a more comprehensive structured approach that eventually resulted in a list of ranked priority titles for authoring, updating, or disseminating Cochrane reviews. Most groups involved researchers, practitioners, and patients in their prioritization processes. CONCLUSION: Groups within The Cochrane Collaboration currently use a range of different priority-setting systems, some of which are more detailed than others. These differences often reflect the nature of The Cochrane Collaboration itself: given the topic breadth, history, and variety of international contexts present in the organization, a single unified system would not always be appropriate. All Cochrane entities, however, should have or develop strategic plans to improve the inclusiveness and transparency of their own prioritization processes, increase the number of finished prioritized reviews, and make more effective use of feedback from end users to increase the likelihood of producing reviews that have positive effects on health outcomes.
    Journal of clinical epidemiology 04/2012; 66(5). DOI:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.01.001 · 5.48 Impact Factor
Show more