Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: ‘Overviews’ of reviews on a similar topic have been proposed as an area of focus for the Cochrane Collaboration. Yet comparisons across interventions can only be made if the same clinically important outcomes are assessed in the reviews.
Objectives: To determine whether there is agreement on primary and secondary outcomes across Cochrane reviews and protocols on primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG), the largest clinical topic within CEVG’s review portfolio.
Methods: Eligible reviews were published on or before April 20, 2012 and included populations diagnosed as having POAG or glaucoma suspect. Two abstractors independently extracted information from the methods section of each review on whether the review examined the following outcomes of interest: intraocular pressure (IOP), visual acuity (VA), visual field (VF), quality of life, adverse events, and economic data. For each outcome abstractors noted the time-point of measurement and whether the outcome was considered primary or secondary. Abstractors classified for each review and each named outcome as to whether the description was complete (i.e. was it a continuous or dichotomous measure) and whether specific time-point(s) for assessment were noted.
Results: Of the 11 reviews and 4 protocols identified and eligible, 9 (60%) provided complete descriptions of at least 1 outcome variable and time-point. IOP was reported as an outcome in 9/9 cases (primary outcome for 6/9 and secondary outcome for 3/9) (see Table 1). VA was reported as an outcome in 5/9 cases and VF in 4/9. Quality of life was assessed in 7/9 and economic information in 4/9. The mean number of adverse events considered by each review was 6.4 ± 2.4.
Conclusions: While IOP was consistently assessed across reviews, patient-important outcomes of VA and VF (measures of visual function) were not. These results suggest greater harmonization in patient-important outcomes across reviews is needed for overviews to be meaningful.
Objectives: To determine whether there is agreement on primary and secondary outcomes across Cochrane reviews and protocols on primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG), the largest clinical topic within CEVG’s review portfolio.
Methods: Eligible reviews were published on or before April 20, 2012 and included populations diagnosed as having POAG or glaucoma suspect. Two abstractors independently extracted information from the methods section of each review on whether the review examined the following outcomes of interest: intraocular pressure (IOP), visual acuity (VA), visual field (VF), quality of life, adverse events, and economic data. For each outcome abstractors noted the time-point of measurement and whether the outcome was considered primary or secondary. Abstractors classified for each review and each named outcome as to whether the description was complete (i.e. was it a continuous or dichotomous measure) and whether specific time-point(s) for assessment were noted.
Results: Of the 11 reviews and 4 protocols identified and eligible, 9 (60%) provided complete descriptions of at least 1 outcome variable and time-point. IOP was reported as an outcome in 9/9 cases (primary outcome for 6/9 and secondary outcome for 3/9) (see Table 1). VA was reported as an outcome in 5/9 cases and VF in 4/9. Quality of life was assessed in 7/9 and economic information in 4/9. The mean number of adverse events considered by each review was 6.4 ± 2.4.
Conclusions: While IOP was consistently assessed across reviews, patient-important outcomes of VA and VF (measures of visual function) were not. These results suggest greater harmonization in patient-important outcomes across reviews is needed for overviews to be meaningful.
Images
