Dataset Information

Core outcome set for three ophthalmic conditions: a healthcare professional and patient consensus on core outcome sets for amblyopia, ocular motility and strabismus (COSAMS Study).

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

Amblyopia, strabismus and ocular motility disorders are common conditions with significant impact on visual function, appearance and quality of life. We aimed to establish a core set of outcomes for each of the three conditions for use in clinical trials and routine clinical practice.

Design

A comprehensive databank of outcomes was developed from a systematic review of the literature and a series of focus groups with healthcare professionals, researchers, patients and carers. The databank of outcomes was scored in a two-round Delphi Survey completed by two stakeholder groups: healthcare professionals/researchers and patients/carers. Results of the online Delphi were discussed at a face-to-face consensus meeting where the core outcome sets were finalised.

Setting

UK-wide consultation.

Participants

Researchers, clinicians, patients and carers.

Outcome measures

Core outcome sets.

Results

For amblyopia, strabismus and ocular motility, 40/42/33 participants contributed to both rounds of the Delphi; six/nine/seven members attended consensus meetings, respectively. Consensus was reached on ten core outcomes for both amblyopia and ocular motility and nine for strabismus. All three conditions shared the core outcomes: adverse events, cost, vision-related quality of life and ocular alignment. The strabismus and ocular motility disorder core sets included, in addition, measuring the deviation, binocular vision, ocular movement, patient satisfaction and symptoms. The amblyopia set, distinct from the sets for the other two conditions, included best corrected distance and near visual acuity, spherical and cylindrical refraction, compliance and treatment-related and functionality/long-term impacts.

Conclusions

The study used robust consensus methods to develop a core outcome set for three ophthalmic conditions. Implementation of these core outcome sets in clinical trials and routine clinical practice will ensure that the outcomes being measured and reported are relevant to all stakeholders. This will enhance the relevance of study findings and enable comparison of results from different studies.

SUBMITTER: Al-Jabri S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8118006 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Core Outcome Sets (COS) are defined as the minimum sets of outcomes that should be measured and reported in all randomised controlled trials to facilitate combination and comparability of research. The aim of this review is to produce an item bank of previously reported outcome measures from published studies in amblyopia, strabismus and ocular motility disorders to initiate the development of COS. METHODS:A review was conducted to identify articles reporting outcome measures for amblyopia, strabismus and ocular motility disorders. Using systematic methods according to the COMET handbook we searched key electronic bibliographic databases from 1st January 2011 to 27th September 2016 using MESH terms and alternatives indicating the different subtypes of amblyopia, strabismus and ocular motility disorders in relation to treatment outcomes and all synonyms. We included Cochrane reviews, other systematic reviews, controlled trials, non-systematic reviews and retrospective studies. Data was extracted to tabulate demographics of included studies, primary and secondary outcomes, methods of measurement and their time points. RESULTS:A total of 142 studies were included; 42 in amblyopia, 33 in strabismus, and 68 in ocular motility disorders (one study overlap between amblyopia and strabismus). We identified ten main outcome measure domains for amblyopia, 14 for strabismus, and ten common "visual or motility" outcome measure domains for ocular motility disorders. Within the domains, we found variable nomenclature being used and diversity in methods and timings of measurements. CONCLUSION:This review highlights discrepancies in outcome measure reporting within published literature for amblyopia, strabismus and ocular motility and it generated an item bank of the most commonly used and reported outcome measures for each of the three conditions from recent literature to start the process of COS development. Consensus among all stakeholders including patients and professionals is recommended to establish a useful COS.

Project description:ObjectivesVisual impairment following stroke is common with a reported incidence of visual impairment in 60% of stroke survivors. Screening for visual impairment is neither routine nor standardised. This results in a health inequality where some stroke survivors receive comprehensive vision assessment to identify any existent visual problems while others receive no vision assessment leaving them with unmet needs from undiagnosed visual problems. The aim of this study was to define two core outcome sets (COS), one for vision screening and one for full visual assessment of stroke survivors.DesignA list of potentially relevant visual assessments was created from a review of the literature. The consensus process consisted of an online 3-round Delphi survey followed by a consensus meeting of the key stakeholders.ParticipantsStakeholders included orthoptists, occupational therapists, ophthalmologists, stroke survivors and COS users such as researchers, journal editors and guideline developers.SettingUniversity.Outcome measuresCOS.ResultsFollowing the consensus process we recommend the following nine assessments for vision screening: case history, clinical observations of visual signs, visual acuity, eye alignment position, eye movement assessment, visual field assessment, visual neglect assessment, functional vision assessment and reading assessment. We recommend the following 11 assessments for full vision assessment: case history, observations, visual acuity, eye alignment position, eye movement assessment, binocular vision assessment, eye position measurement, visual field assessment, visual neglect assessment, functional vision assessment, reading assessment and quality of life questionnaires.ConclusionsCOS are defined for vision screening and full vision assessment for stroke survivors. There is potential for their use in reducing heterogeneity in routine clinical practice and for improving standardisation and accuracy of vision assessment. Future research is required to evaluate the use of these COS and for further exploration of core outcome measures.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Normal visual development occurs when the brain is able to integrate the visual input from each of the two eyes to form a single three-dimensional image. The process of development of complete three-dimensional vision begins at birth and is almost complete by 24 months of age. The development of this binocular vision is hindered by any abnormality that prevents the brain from receiving a clear, similar image from each eye, due to decreased vision (e.g. amblyopia), or due to misalignment of the two eyes (strabismus or squint) in infancy and early childhood. Currently, practice patterns for management of a child with both strabismus and amblyopia are not standardized. OBJECTIVES:To study the functional and anatomic (ocular alignment) outcomes of strabismus surgery before completion of amblyopia therapy as compared with surgery after completion of amblyopia therapy in children under seven years of age. SEARCH METHODS:We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (2014, Issue 6), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to July 2014), EMBASE (January 1980 to July 2014), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS) (January 1982 to July 2014), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 24 July 2014. A manual search for articles from a review of the references of the selected publications and conference abstracts was completed to identify any additional relevant studies. SELECTION CRITERIA:We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that provided data on strabismus surgery in children less than seven years of age, performed after initiation of, but before completion of amblyopia therapy, as compared with strabismus surgery after completion of amblyopia therapy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:Two authors independently assessed studies identified from the electronic and manual searches. MAIN RESULTS:There were no RCTs that fit our inclusion criteria and so no analysis was possible. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:As there are no RCTs currently available and the best existing evidence is only from non-randomized studies, there is a need for prospective RCTs to investigate strabismus surgery in the presence of strabismic amblyopia. The optimal timing of when to perform strabismus surgery in children with amblyopia is unknown.

Project description:The Adult Strabismus Quality of Life Questionnaire (AS-20) and the Amblyopia & Strabismus Questionnaire (A&SQ) both measure health-related quality of life in strabismus patients. We evaluated to what extent these instruments cover similar domains by identifying the underlying quality-of-life factors of the combined questionnaires.Participants were adults from a historic cohort with available orthoptic childhood data documenting strabismus and/or amblyopia. They had previously completed the A&SQ and were now asked to complete the AS-20. Factor analysis was performed on the correlation-matrix of the combined AS-20 and A&SQ data to identify common underlying factors. The identified factors were correlated with the clinical variables of angle of strabismus, degree of binocular vision, and visual acuity of the worse eye.One hundred ten patients completed both questionnaires (mean age, 44 years; range, 38-51 years). Six factors were found that together explained 78% of the total variance. The factor structure was dominated by the first four factors. One factor contained psychosocial and social-contact items, and another factor depth-perception items from both questionnaires. A third factor contained seven items-only from the AS-20-on eye strain, stress, and difficulties with reading and with concentrating. A fourth factor contained seven items-only from the A&SQ-on fear of losing the better eye and visual disorientation, specific for amblyopia. Current visual acuity of the worse eye correlated with depth-perception items and vision-related items, whereas current binocular vision correlated with psychosocial and social-contact items, in 93 patients.Factor analysis suggests that the AS-20 and A&SQ measure a similar psychosocial quality-of-life domain. However, functional problems like avoidance of reading, difficulty in concentrating, eye stress, reading problems, inability to enjoy hobbies, and need for frequent breaks when reading are represented only in the AS-20. During the development of the A&SQ, asthenopia items were considered insufficiently specific for strabismus and were excluded a priori. The patients who generated the items for the AS-20 had, in majority, adulthood-onset strabismus and diplopia and were, hence, more likely to develop such complaints than our adult patients with childhood-onset strabismus and/or amblyopia.