Dataset Information

Protocol for a scoping review to map evidence from randomised controlled trials on paediatric eye disease to disease burden.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Currently, about 2 per 1000 children in the industrialised world are severely visually impaired or blind (SVI/BL) due to diverse uncommon conditions that are usually present from early infancy. The impact of SVI/BL is lifelong and life-changing. Thus, children are a priority in the WHO-led global initiative against avoidable blindness. The aim of this scoping review is to assess the current evidence base on interventions to prevent or treat the major causes of childhood SVI/BL, specifically the degree of alignment between robust interventional research (RCTs) and the burden (relative frequency) of the key causative disorders, identifying gaps in the evidence base for tackling childhood blindness.

Methods/design

We will perform a scoping review of the published literature of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for clinical interventions that prevent or treat eye and vision diseases in children (<18 years old). Major electronic databases MEDLINE (PUBMED), EMBASE and the Cochrane CENTRAL will be searched to identify published trials using a comprehensive paediatric specific strategy informed by previous searches. The outcome of our study, randomised clinical trial activity, will be measured by the total number of RCTs and total paediatric participants randomised. The quantity and distribution of activity across diseases will be classified in the broad categories of anatomical site affected (per WHO taxonomy). The degree of alignment between paediatric trial activity and burden of SVI/BL disease (relative proportion) will be measured using a test of association (Spearman's correlation coefficient).

Discussion

Despite the global public health importance of childhood blindness, there has been no assessment of the completeness of the evidence base regarding clinical interventions to prevent or treat the causative disorders. This scoping review will measure the degree of alignment between the published evidence and the burden of disease to identify gaps in current knowledge and consider the underlying reasons, informing clinicians, policy makers and funders about research priorities.

SUBMITTER: Teoh LJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5563052 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Protocol for a scoping review to map evidence from randomised controlled trials on paediatric eye disease to disease burden.

Teoh Lucinda J LJ Solebo Ameenat L AL Rahi Jugnoo S JS

Systematic reviews 20170818 1

<h4>Background</h4>Currently, about 2 per 1000 children in the industrialised world are severely visually impaired or blind (SVI/BL) due to diverse uncommon conditions that are usually present from early infancy. The impact of SVI/BL is lifelong and life-changing. Thus, children are a priority in the WHO-led global initiative against avoidable blindness. The aim of this scoping review is to assess the current evidence base on interventions to prevent or treat the major causes of childhood SVI/BL ...[more]

PMID: 28821263

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo determine whether an association exists between the number of published randomised controlled trials and the global burden of disease, whether certain diseases are under-investigated relative to their burden, and whether the relation between the output of randomised trials and global burden of disease can be explained by the relative disease burden in high and low income regions.DesignCross sectional investigation.Study sampleAll primary reports of randomised trials published in December 2012 and indexed in PubMed by 17 November 2013.Main outcome measuresNumber of trials conducted and number of participants randomised for each of 239 different diseases or injuries; variation in each outcome explainable by total disability adjusted life years (a measure of the overall burden of each disease) and the ratio of disability adjusted life years in low income to high income regions (a measure of whether a disease is more likely to affect people living in high income regions) quantified using multivariable regression.Results4190 abstracts were reviewed and 1351 primary randomised trials identified, of which 1097 could be classified using the global burden of disease taxonomy. Total disability adjusted life years was poorly associated with number of randomised trials and number of participants randomised in univariable analysis (Spearman's r=0.35 and 0.33, respectively), although it was a significant predictor in the univariable and multivariable models (P<0.001). Diseases for which the burden was predominantly located in low income regions had sevenfold fewer trials per million disability adjusted life years than diseases predominantly located in high income regions. However, only 26% of the variation in number of trials among diseases could be explained by total disability adjusted life years and the ratio of disability adjusted life years in low income regions to high income regions. Many high income type diseases (for example, neck pain, glomerulonephritis) have proportionally fewer randomised trials compared with low income type diseases (for example, vitamin A deficiency).ConclusionsOverall, a weak association existed between global burden of disease and number of published randomised trials. A global observatory for research is needed to monitor and reduce the discordance between the output of randomised trials and global burden of disease.

Project description:IntroductionRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) aim to assess the effect of one (or more) unproven health interventions relative to other reference interventions. RCTs sometimes use an ordinal outcome, which is an endpoint that comprises of multiple, monotonically ordered categories that are not necessarily separated by a quantifiable distance. Ordinal outcomes are appealing in clinical settings as specific disease states can represent meaningful categories that may be of clinical importance to researchers. Ordinal outcomes can also retain information and increase statistical power compared to dichotomised outcomes and can allow multiple clinical outcomes to be comprised in a single endpoint. Target parameters for ordinal outcomes in RCTs may vary depending on the nature of the research question, the modelling assumptions and the expertise of the data analyst. The aim of this scoping review is to systematically describe the use of ordinal outcomes in contemporary RCTs. Specifically, we aim to: [Formula: see text] Identify which target parameters are of interest in trials that use an ordinal outcome, and whether these parameters are explicitly defined. [Formula: see text] Describe how ordinal outcomes are analysed in RCTs to estimate a treatment effect. [Formula: see text] Describe whether RCTs that use an ordinal outcome adequately report key methodological aspects specific to the analysis of the ordinal outcome. Results from this review will outline the current state of practice of the use of ordinal outcomes in RCTs. Ways to improve the analysis and reporting of ordinal outcomes in RCTs will be discussed.Methods and analysisWe will review RCTs that are published in the top four medical journals (British Medical Journal, New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet and the Journal of the American Medical Association) between 1 January 2012 and 31 July 2022 that use an ordinal outcome as either a primary or a secondary outcome. The review will identify articles through a PubMed-specific search strategy. Our review will adhere to guidelines for scoping reviews as described in the PRISMA-ScR checklist. The study characteristics and details of the study design and analysis, including the target parameter(s) and statistical methods used to analyse the ordinal outcome, will be extracted from eligible studies. The screening, review and data extraction will be conducted using Covidence, a web-based tool for managing systematic reviews. The data will be summarised using descriptive statistics.

Project description:IntroductionInformed consent is essential to clinical research, though obtaining informed consent for participation in research for emergency conditions is challenging. Adapted consent methods include consent from a substitute-decision maker, deferral of consent and waiver of consent. A novel approach is to use advanced consent, where a potential participant provides consent in the present in the event that they become eligible for enrolment into a future study. This scoping review will map and synthesise the literature on the use of advanced consent for participation and enrolment in randomised control trials for emergency conditions.Methods and analysisGuided by Arksey and O'Malley's scoping review methodology framework, we will search electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Register of Clinical Trials), the grey literature sources and reference lists of relevant studies. Eligible studies will include English language articles that discuss, examine or employ the use of advanced consent for enrolment in randomised control trials, specifically related to emergency conditions or emergency treatment. Diverse types of articles will be eligible for inclusion, including peer-reviewed qualitative and quantitative studies such as randomised control trials, observational studies, surveys, systematic reviews, as well as narrative reviews and ethics papers. Studies will be screened by two independent reviewers to determine eligibility for inclusion. Data on bibliographic information, study characteristics and methodology, and reported results, specifically author disposition, will be extracted and described using qualitative analysis.Ethics and disseminationFormal ethics review is not required as primary data will not be collected. The findings of this study will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication. The findings of this study will help identify knowledge gaps that may guide areas for future research and may aid in the design of future clinical trials using advanced consent.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Obesity has become one of the biggest public health problems of the 21st century. Prevalence of obesity in children and adolescents has increased dramatically worldwide over the last 20 years, and this trend is expected to continue. Obesity in childhood is concerning as it predicts obesity in adulthood, a common risk factor for a wide array of chronic diseases and poor health outcomes. Obesity is preventable and a vast but fragmented body of evidence on preventative interventions is now available. This article outlines the protocol for a scoping review of published literature reviews on interventions to prevent obesity in children. The scoping review addresses the broad research question 'What is the evidence on interventions to prevent childhood obesity?'. It aims to give an overview of the various interventions available, understand those which are effective and identify barriers and facilitators to their effectiveness. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:The six-staged Arksey and O'Malley methodology framework is used to guide the scoping review process: following the definition of the research questions (stage 1); the eligibility criteria and search strategy are defined (stage 2); the study selection process based on the eligibility criteria identified will follow (stage 3); a framework developed for this review will then inform the extraction and charting of data from the included reviews (stage 4); results will be aggregated and summarised with criteria relevant for health professionals and policy-makers (stage 5); and the optional consultation (stage 6) exercise is not planned. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:Since the scoping review methodology aims at synthetising information from available publications, this study does not require ethical approval. An article reporting the results of the scoping review will be submitted for publication to a scientific journal, presented at relevant conferences and disseminated as part of future workshops with professionals involved in obesity prevention.

Project description:IntroductionCohort studies generate and collect longitudinal data for a variety of research purposes. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) increasingly use cohort studies as data infrastructures to help identify and recruit trial participants and assess outcomes.ObjectiveTo examine the extent, range and nature of research using cohorts for RCTs and describe the varied definitions and conceptual boundaries for RCTs using cohorts.DesignScoping review.Data sourcesSearches were undertaken in January 2021 in MEDLINE (Ovid) and EBM Reviews-Cochrane Methodology Registry (Final issue, third Quarter 2012).Eligibility criteriaReports published between January 2007 and December 2021 of (a) cohorts used or planned to be used, to conduct RCTs, or (b) RCTs which use cohorts to recruit participants and/or collect trial outcomes, or (c) methodological studies discussing the use of cohorts for RCTs.Data extraction and synthesisData were extracted on the condition being studied, age group, setting, country/continent, intervention(s) and comparators planned or received, unit of randomisation, timing of randomisation, approach to informed consent, study design and terminology.ResultsA total of 175 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. We identified 61 protocols, 9 descriptions of stand-alone cohorts intended to be used for future RCTs, 39 RCTs using cohorts and 34 methodological papers.The use and scope of this approach is growing. The thematics of study are far-ranging, including population health, oncology, mental and behavioural disorders, and musculoskeletal conditions.Authors reported that this approach can lead to more efficient recruitment, more representative samples, and lessen disappointment bias and crossovers.ConclusionThis review outlines the development of cohorts to conduct RCTs including the range of use and innovative changes and adaptations. Inconsistencies in the use of terminology and concepts are highlighted. Guidance now needs to be developed to support the design and reporting of RCTs conducted using cohorts.

Project description:IntroductionRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) are widely viewed to generate the most reliable medical knowledge. However, RCTs are not always scientifically necessary and therefore not always ethical. Unfortunately, it is not clear when an RCT is not necessary or how this should be established. This study seeks to systematically catalogue justifications offered throughout the medical and ethics literature for performing randomisation within clinical trials.Methods and analysisWe will systematically search electronic databases of the medical literature including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Clinical Trials Register, Web of Science Proceedings, ClinicalTrials.gov; databases of philosophical literature including Philosopher's Index, Phil Papers, JSTOR, Periodicals Archive Online, Project MUSE, National Reference Centre for Bioethics; the library catalogue at the University of Ottawa; bibliographies of retrieved papers; and the grey literature. We will also pursue suggestions from experts in the fields of medical ethics, philosophy and clinical trial methodology. Article screening, selection and data extraction will be performed by two independent reviewers based on prespecified inclusion/exclusion criteria. A third reviewer will be consulted to resolve any discrepancies. We will then extract the reasons given to justify randomisation using methodology established to extract data in a defensible, systematic manner. We will track the reasons given, their frequency of use and changes over time. Finally, using grounded theory, we will combine the reasons into broader themes. These themes will form the foundation of our subsequent analysis from qualitative and quantitative perspectives. This review will map existing arguments that clinicians, ethicists and philosophers use to ethically justify randomisation in clinical trials.Ethics and disseminationNo research ethics board approval is necessary because we are not examining patient-level data. This protocol complies with the reported guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. The findings of this paper will be disseminated via presentations and academic publication. In a subsequent phase of this research, we hope to engage with stakeholders and translate any recommendations derived from our findings into operational guidelines.

Dataset Information

Protocol for a scoping review to map evidence from randomised controlled trials on paediatric eye disease to disease burden.

Background

Methods/design

Discussion

Publications

Protocol for a scoping review to map evidence from randomised controlled trials on paediatric eye disease to disease burden.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets