Gaps in Current Knowledge and Priorities for Future Research in Dry Eye.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE:Dry eye, a common yet underrecognized and evolving field, has few recommended treatment algorithms, mostly based on expert consensus rather than robust research evidence. There are high costs associated with managing dry eye and conducting research to identify effective and safe long-term treatments. To support evidence-based management of dry eye, our purpose was to identify and prioritize important clinical research questions for future clinical research. METHODS:We translated recommendations from the American Academy of Ophthalmology's 2013 Preferred Practice Patterns for dry eye into answerable clinical research questions about treatment effectiveness. Clinicians around the world who manage patients with dry eye rated each question's importance from 0 (not important) to 10 (very important) using a 2-round online Delphi survey. We considered questions as "important" if ?75% of respondents assigned a rating of 6 or more in round 2. We mapped the identified important clinical research questions to reliable systematic reviews published up to March 2016. RESULTS:Seventy-five clinicians from at least 21 countries completed both Delphi rounds. Among the 58 questions, 24 met our definition of "important": 9/24 and 7/24 addressed topical and systemic treatments, respectively. All 4 questions with the highest 25th percentiles addressed topical treatments. Although 6/24 "important" questions were associated with 4 existing reliable systematic reviews, none of these reviews came to a definitive conclusion about treatment effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS:We identified gaps pertaining to treatment options for dry eye. Future clinical research on the management of dry eye should strongly consider these prioritized questions.

SUBMITTER: Saldanha IJ 

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5678755 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature