Dataset Information

A survey of attitudes of glaucoma subspecialists in England and Wales to visual field test intervals in relation to NICE guidelines.

ABSTRACT: To establish the attitudes of glaucoma specialists to the frequency of visual field (VF) testing in the UK, using the NICE recommendations as a standard for ideal practice.Interview and postal survey.UK and Eire Glaucoma Society national meeting 2011 in Manchester, UK, with a second round of surveys administered by post.All consultant glaucoma specialists in England and Wales were invited to complete the survey.(1) Compliance of assigned follow-up VF intervals with NICE guidelines for three hypothetical patient scenarios, with satisfactory treated intraocular pressure and (a) no evidence of VF progression; (b) evidence of VF progression and (c) uncertainty about VF progression, and respondents were asked to provide typical follow-up intervals representative of their practice; (2) attitudes to research recommendations for six VF in the first 2 years for newly diagnosed patients with glaucoma.70 glaucoma specialists completed the survey. For each of the clinical scenarios a, b and c, 14 (20%), 33 (47%) and 28 (40%) responses, respectively, fell outside the follow-up interval recommended by NICE. Nearly half of the specialists (46%) agreed that 6 VF tests in the first 2 years was ideal practice, while 16 (28%) said this was practice 'not possible', with many giving resources within the NHS setting as a limiting factor.The results from this survey suggest that there is a large variation in attitudes to follow-up intervals for patients with glaucoma in the UK, with assigned intervals for VF testing which are, in many cases, inconsistent with the guidelines from NICE.

SUBMITTER: Malik R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3646174 | biostudies-other | 2013

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A survey of attitudes of glaucoma subspecialists in England and Wales to visual field test intervals in relation to NICE guidelines.

Malik Rizwan R Baker Helen H Russell Richard A RA Crabb David P DP

BMJ open 20130503 5

<h4>Objectives</h4>To establish the attitudes of glaucoma specialists to the frequency of visual field (VF) testing in the UK, using the NICE recommendations as a standard for ideal practice.<h4>Design</h4>Interview and postal survey.<h4>Setting</h4>UK and Eire Glaucoma Society national meeting 2011 in Manchester, UK, with a second round of surveys administered by post.<h4>Participants</h4>All consultant glaucoma specialists in England and Wales were invited to complete the survey.<h4>Primary an ...[more]

PMID: 23645919

Similar Datasets

Project description:PURPOSE:To develop a visual field (VF) feature model to predict the reversal of glaucoma hemifield test (GHT) results to within normal limits (WNL) after 2 consecutive outside normal limits (ONL) results. DESIGN:Retrospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS:Visual fields of 44?503 eyes from 26?130 participants. METHODS:Eyes with 3 or more consecutive reliable VFs measured with the Humphrey Field Analyzer (Swedish interactive threshold algorithm standard 24-2) were included. Eyes with ONL GHT results for the 2 baseline VFs were selected. We extracted 3 categories of VF features from the baseline tests: (1) VF global indices (mean deviation [MD] and pattern standard deviation), (2) mismatch between baseline VFs, and (3) VF loss patterns (archetypes). Logistic regression was applied to predict the GHT results reversal. Cross-validation was applied to evaluate the model on testing data by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). We ascertained clinical glaucoma status on a patient subset (n = 97) to determine the usefulness of our model. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Predictive models for GHT results reversal using VF features. RESULTS:For the 16?604 eyes with 2 initial ONL results, the prevalence of a subsequent WNL result increased from 0.1% for MD < -12 dB to 13.8% for MD ?-3 dB. Compared with models with VF global indices, the AUC of predictive models increased from 0.669 (MD ?-3 dB) and 0.697 (-6 dB ? MD < -3 dB) to 0.770 and 0.820, respectively, by adding VF mismatch features and computationally derived VF archetypes (P < 0.001 for both). The GHT results reversal was associated with a large mismatch between baseline VFs. Moreover, the GHT results reversal was associated more with VF archetypes of nonglaucomatous loss, severe widespread loss, and lens rim artifacts. For a subset of 97 eyes, using our model to predict absence of glaucoma based on clinical evidence after 2 ONL results yielded significantly better prediction accuracy (87.7%; P < 0.001) than predicting GHT results reversal (68.8%) with a prescribed specificity 67.7%. CONCLUSIONS:Using VF features may predict the GHT results reversal to WNL after 2 consecutive ONL results.

Project description:PurposeTo model the global test-retest variability of visual fields (VFs) in glaucoma.DesignRetrospective cohort study.ParticipantsTest-retest VFs from 4044 eyes of 4044 participants.MethodsWe selected 2 reliable VFs per eye measured with the Humphrey Field Analyzer (Swedish interactive threshold algorithm 24-2) within 30 days of each other. Each VF had fixation losses (FLs) of 33% or less, false-negative results (FNRs) of 20% or less, and false-positive results (FPRs) of 20% or less. Stepwise linear regression was applied to select the model best predicting the global test-retest variability from 3 categories of features of the first VF: (1) base parameters (age, mean deviation, pattern standard deviation, glaucoma hemifield test results, FPR, FNR, and FL); (2) total deviation (TD) at each location; and (3) computationally derived archetype VF loss patterns. The global test-retest variability was defined as root mean square deviation (RMSD) of TD values at all 52 VF locations.Main outcome measuresArchetype models to predict the global test-retest variability.ResultsThe mean ± standard deviation of the root mean square deviation was 4.39 ± 2.55 dB. Between the 2 VF tests, TD values were correlated more strongly in central than in peripheral VF locations (intraclass coefficient, 0.66-0.89; P < 0.001). Compared with the model using base parameters alone (adjusted R2 = 0.45), adding TD values improved prediction accuracy of the global variability (adjusted R2 = 0.53; P < 0.001; Bayesian information criterion [BIC] decrease of 527; change of >6 represents strong improvement). Lower TD sensitivity in the outermost peripheral VF locations was predictive of higher global variability. Adding archetypes to the base model improved model performance with an adjusted R2 of 0.53 (P < 0.001) and lowering of BIC by 583. Greater variability was associated with concentric peripheral defect, temporal hemianopia, inferotemporal defect, near total loss, superior peripheral defect, and central scotoma (listed in order of decreasing statistical significance), and less normal VF results and superior paracentral defect.ConclusionsInclusion of archetype VF loss patterns and TD values based on first VF improved the prediction of the global test-retest variability than using traditional global VF indices alone.

Project description:BackgroundUpdating is important to ensure clinical guideline (CG) recommendations remain valid. However, little research has been undertaken in this field. We assessed CGs produced by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) to identify and describe updated recommendations and to investigate potential factors associated with updating. Also, we evaluated the reporting and presentation of recommendation changes.MethodsWe performed a descriptive analysis of original and updated CGs and recommendations, and an assessment of presentation formats and methods for recording information. We conducted a case-control study, defining cases as original recommendations that were updated ('new-replaced' recommendations), and controls as original recommendations that were considered to remain valid ('not changed' recommendations). We performed a comparison of main characteristics between cases and controls, and we planned a multiple regression analysis to identify potential predictive factors for updating.ResultsWe included nine updated CGs (1,306 recommendations) and their corresponding original versions (1,106 recommendations). Updated CGs included 812 (62%) recommendations 'not reviewed', 368 (28.1%) 'new' recommendations, 104 (7.9%) 'amended' recommendations, and 25 (1.9%) recommendations reviewed but unchanged. The presentation formats used to indicate the changes in recommendations varied widely across CGs. Changes in 'amended', 'deleted', and 'new-replaced' recommendations (n = 296) were reported infrequently, mostly in appendices. These changes were recorded in 167 (56.4%) recommendations; and were explained in 81 (27.4%) recommendations. We retrieved a total of 7.1% (n = 78) case recommendations ('new-replaced') and 2.4% (n = 27) control recommendations ('not changed') in original CGs. The updates were mainly from 'Fertility CG', about 'gynaecology, pregnancy and birth' topic, and 'treatment' or 'prevention' purposes. We did not perform the multiple regression analysis as originally planned due to the small sample of recommendations retrieved.ConclusionOur study is the first to describe and assess updated CGs and recommendations from a national guideline program. Our results highlight the pressing need to standardise the reporting and presentation of updated recommendations and the research gap about the optimal way to present updates to guideline users. Furthermore, there is a need to investigate updating predictive factors.

Project description:The primary aim was to use routine data to compare cancer diagnostic intervals before and after implementation of the 2005 NICE Referral Guidelines for Suspected Cancer. The secondary aim was to compare change in diagnostic intervals across different categories of presenting symptoms.Using data from the General Practice Research Database, we analysed patients with one of 15 cancers diagnosed in either 2001-2002 or 2007-2008. Putative symptom lists for each cancer were classified into whether or not they qualified for urgent referral under NICE guidelines. Diagnostic interval (duration from first presented symptom to date of diagnosis in primary care records) was compared between the two cohorts.In total, 37,588 patients had a new diagnosis of cancer and of these 20,535 (54.6%) had a recorded symptom in the year prior to diagnosis and were included in the analysis. The overall mean diagnostic interval fell by 5.4 days (95% CI: 2.4-8.5; P<0.001) between 2001-2002 and 2007-2008. There was evidence of significant reductions for the following cancers: (mean, 95% confidence interval) kidney (20.4 days, -0.5 to 41.5; P=0.05), head and neck (21.2 days, 0.2-41.6; P=0.04), bladder (16.4 days, 6.6-26.5; P≤0.001), colorectal (9.0 days, 3.2-14.8; P=0.002), oesophageal (13.1 days, 3.0-24.1; P=0.006) and pancreatic (12.6 days, 0.2-24.6; P=0.04). Patients who presented with NICE-qualifying symptoms had shorter diagnostic intervals than those who did not (all cancers in both cohorts). For the 2007-2008 cohort, the cancers with the shortest median diagnostic intervals were breast (26 days) and testicular (44 days); the highest were myeloma (156 days) and lung (112 days). The values for the 90th centiles of the distributions remain very high for some cancers. Tests of interaction provided little evidence of differences in change in mean diagnostic intervals between those who did and did not present with symptoms specifically cited in the NICE Guideline as requiring urgent referral.We suggest that the implementation of the 2005 NICE Guidelines may have contributed to this reduction in diagnostic intervals between 2001-2002 and 2007-2008. There remains considerable scope to achieve more timely cancer diagnosis, with the ultimate aim of improving cancer outcomes.

Dataset Information

A survey of attitudes of glaucoma subspecialists in England and Wales to visual field test intervals in relation to NICE guidelines.

Publications

A survey of attitudes of glaucoma subspecialists in England and Wales to visual field test intervals in relation to NICE guidelines.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets