Evaluation of Systematic Reviews of Interventions for Retina and Vitreous Conditions

Jimmy T. Le, Riaz Qureshi, Claire Twose, Lori Rosman, Genie Han, Kolade Fapohunda, Ian J. Saldanha, Roberta W. Scherer, Flora Lum, Ali Al-Rajhi, David C. Musch, Barbara S. Hawkins, Kay Dickersin, Tianjing Li

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Importance: Patient care and clinical practice guidelines should be informed by evidence from reliable systematic reviews. The reliability of systematic reviews related to forthcoming guidelines for retina and vitreous conditions is unknown. Objectives: To summarize the reliability of systematic reviews on interventions for 7 retina and vitreous conditions, describe characteristics of reliable and unreliable systematic reviews, and examine the primary area in which they appeared to be lacking. Design, Setting, and Participants: A cross-sectional study of systematic reviews was conducted. Systematic reviews of interventions for retina- and vitreous-related conditions in a database maintained by the Cochrane Eyes and Vision United States Satellite were identified. Databases that the reviewers searched, whether any date or language restrictions were applied, and bibliographic information, such as year and journal of publication, were documented. The initial search was conducted in March 2007, and the final update was performed in July 2018. The conditions of interest were age-related macular degeneration; diabetic retinopathy; idiopathic epiretinal membrane and vitreomacular traction; idiopathic macular hole; posterior vitreous detachment, retinal breaks, and lattice degeneration; retinal and ophthalmic artery occlusions; and retinal vein occlusions. The reliability of each review was evaluated using prespecified criteria. Data were extracted by 2 research assistants working independently, with disagreements resolved through discussion or by 1 research assistant with verification by a senior team member. Main Outcomes and Measures: Proportion of reviews that meet all of the following criteria: (1) defined eligibility criteria for study selection, (2) described conducting a comprehensive literature search, (3) reported assessing risk of bias in included studies, (4) described using appropriate methods for any meta-analysis performed, and (5) provided conclusions consistent with review findings. Results: A total of 327 systematic reviews that addressed retina and vitreous conditions were identified; of these, 131 reviews (40.1%) were classified as reliable and 196 reviews (59.9%) were classified as not reliable. At least 1 reliable review was found for each of the 7 retina and vitreous conditions. The most common reason that a review was classified as not reliable was lack of evidence that a comprehensive literature search for relevant studies had been conducted (149 of 196 reviews [76.0%]). Conclusion and Relevance: The findings of this study suggest that most systematic reviews that addressed interventions for retina and vitreous conditions were not reliable. Systematic review teams and guideline developers should work with information professionals who can help navigate sophisticated and varied syntaxes required to search different resources..

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)E1-E7
JournalJAMA ophthalmology
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Jan 1 2019

Fingerprint

Retina
Retinal Perforations
Vitreous Detachment
Databases
Guidelines
Retinal Artery Occlusion
Epiretinal Membrane
Ophthalmic Artery
Retinal Vein Occlusion
Macular Degeneration
Traction
Diabetic Retinopathy
Practice Guidelines
Research
Patient Selection
Publications
Meta-Analysis
Patient Care
Language
Cross-Sectional Studies

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ophthalmology

Cite this

Evaluation of Systematic Reviews of Interventions for Retina and Vitreous Conditions. / Le, Jimmy T.; Qureshi, Riaz; Twose, Claire; Rosman, Lori; Han, Genie; Fapohunda, Kolade; Saldanha, Ian J.; Scherer, Roberta W.; Lum, Flora; Al-Rajhi, Ali; Musch, David C.; Hawkins, Barbara S.; Dickersin, Kay; Li, Tianjing.

In: JAMA ophthalmology, 01.01.2019, p. E1-E7.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Le, Jimmy T. ; Qureshi, Riaz ; Twose, Claire ; Rosman, Lori ; Han, Genie ; Fapohunda, Kolade ; Saldanha, Ian J. ; Scherer, Roberta W. ; Lum, Flora ; Al-Rajhi, Ali ; Musch, David C. ; Hawkins, Barbara S. ; Dickersin, Kay ; Li, Tianjing. / Evaluation of Systematic Reviews of Interventions for Retina and Vitreous Conditions. In: JAMA ophthalmology. 2019 ; pp. E1-E7.
@article{592b6cb4dc184025be05cee932ca2432,
title = "Evaluation of Systematic Reviews of Interventions for Retina and Vitreous Conditions",
abstract = "Importance: Patient care and clinical practice guidelines should be informed by evidence from reliable systematic reviews. The reliability of systematic reviews related to forthcoming guidelines for retina and vitreous conditions is unknown. Objectives: To summarize the reliability of systematic reviews on interventions for 7 retina and vitreous conditions, describe characteristics of reliable and unreliable systematic reviews, and examine the primary area in which they appeared to be lacking. Design, Setting, and Participants: A cross-sectional study of systematic reviews was conducted. Systematic reviews of interventions for retina- and vitreous-related conditions in a database maintained by the Cochrane Eyes and Vision United States Satellite were identified. Databases that the reviewers searched, whether any date or language restrictions were applied, and bibliographic information, such as year and journal of publication, were documented. The initial search was conducted in March 2007, and the final update was performed in July 2018. The conditions of interest were age-related macular degeneration; diabetic retinopathy; idiopathic epiretinal membrane and vitreomacular traction; idiopathic macular hole; posterior vitreous detachment, retinal breaks, and lattice degeneration; retinal and ophthalmic artery occlusions; and retinal vein occlusions. The reliability of each review was evaluated using prespecified criteria. Data were extracted by 2 research assistants working independently, with disagreements resolved through discussion or by 1 research assistant with verification by a senior team member. Main Outcomes and Measures: Proportion of reviews that meet all of the following criteria: (1) defined eligibility criteria for study selection, (2) described conducting a comprehensive literature search, (3) reported assessing risk of bias in included studies, (4) described using appropriate methods for any meta-analysis performed, and (5) provided conclusions consistent with review findings. Results: A total of 327 systematic reviews that addressed retina and vitreous conditions were identified; of these, 131 reviews (40.1{\%}) were classified as reliable and 196 reviews (59.9{\%}) were classified as not reliable. At least 1 reliable review was found for each of the 7 retina and vitreous conditions. The most common reason that a review was classified as not reliable was lack of evidence that a comprehensive literature search for relevant studies had been conducted (149 of 196 reviews [76.0{\%}]). Conclusion and Relevance: The findings of this study suggest that most systematic reviews that addressed interventions for retina and vitreous conditions were not reliable. Systematic review teams and guideline developers should work with information professionals who can help navigate sophisticated and varied syntaxes required to search different resources..",
author = "Le, {Jimmy T.} and Riaz Qureshi and Claire Twose and Lori Rosman and Genie Han and Kolade Fapohunda and Saldanha, {Ian J.} and Scherer, {Roberta W.} and Flora Lum and Ali Al-Rajhi and Musch, {David C.} and Hawkins, {Barbara S.} and Kay Dickersin and Tianjing Li",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2019.4016",
language = "English (US)",
pages = "E1--E7",
journal = "JAMA Ophthalmology",
issn = "2168-6165",
publisher = "American Medical Association",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Evaluation of Systematic Reviews of Interventions for Retina and Vitreous Conditions

AU - Le, Jimmy T.

AU - Qureshi, Riaz

AU - Twose, Claire

AU - Rosman, Lori

AU - Han, Genie

AU - Fapohunda, Kolade

AU - Saldanha, Ian J.

AU - Scherer, Roberta W.

AU - Lum, Flora

AU - Al-Rajhi, Ali

AU - Musch, David C.

AU - Hawkins, Barbara S.

AU - Dickersin, Kay

AU - Li, Tianjing

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - Importance: Patient care and clinical practice guidelines should be informed by evidence from reliable systematic reviews. The reliability of systematic reviews related to forthcoming guidelines for retina and vitreous conditions is unknown. Objectives: To summarize the reliability of systematic reviews on interventions for 7 retina and vitreous conditions, describe characteristics of reliable and unreliable systematic reviews, and examine the primary area in which they appeared to be lacking. Design, Setting, and Participants: A cross-sectional study of systematic reviews was conducted. Systematic reviews of interventions for retina- and vitreous-related conditions in a database maintained by the Cochrane Eyes and Vision United States Satellite were identified. Databases that the reviewers searched, whether any date or language restrictions were applied, and bibliographic information, such as year and journal of publication, were documented. The initial search was conducted in March 2007, and the final update was performed in July 2018. The conditions of interest were age-related macular degeneration; diabetic retinopathy; idiopathic epiretinal membrane and vitreomacular traction; idiopathic macular hole; posterior vitreous detachment, retinal breaks, and lattice degeneration; retinal and ophthalmic artery occlusions; and retinal vein occlusions. The reliability of each review was evaluated using prespecified criteria. Data were extracted by 2 research assistants working independently, with disagreements resolved through discussion or by 1 research assistant with verification by a senior team member. Main Outcomes and Measures: Proportion of reviews that meet all of the following criteria: (1) defined eligibility criteria for study selection, (2) described conducting a comprehensive literature search, (3) reported assessing risk of bias in included studies, (4) described using appropriate methods for any meta-analysis performed, and (5) provided conclusions consistent with review findings. Results: A total of 327 systematic reviews that addressed retina and vitreous conditions were identified; of these, 131 reviews (40.1%) were classified as reliable and 196 reviews (59.9%) were classified as not reliable. At least 1 reliable review was found for each of the 7 retina and vitreous conditions. The most common reason that a review was classified as not reliable was lack of evidence that a comprehensive literature search for relevant studies had been conducted (149 of 196 reviews [76.0%]). Conclusion and Relevance: The findings of this study suggest that most systematic reviews that addressed interventions for retina and vitreous conditions were not reliable. Systematic review teams and guideline developers should work with information professionals who can help navigate sophisticated and varied syntaxes required to search different resources..

AB - Importance: Patient care and clinical practice guidelines should be informed by evidence from reliable systematic reviews. The reliability of systematic reviews related to forthcoming guidelines for retina and vitreous conditions is unknown. Objectives: To summarize the reliability of systematic reviews on interventions for 7 retina and vitreous conditions, describe characteristics of reliable and unreliable systematic reviews, and examine the primary area in which they appeared to be lacking. Design, Setting, and Participants: A cross-sectional study of systematic reviews was conducted. Systematic reviews of interventions for retina- and vitreous-related conditions in a database maintained by the Cochrane Eyes and Vision United States Satellite were identified. Databases that the reviewers searched, whether any date or language restrictions were applied, and bibliographic information, such as year and journal of publication, were documented. The initial search was conducted in March 2007, and the final update was performed in July 2018. The conditions of interest were age-related macular degeneration; diabetic retinopathy; idiopathic epiretinal membrane and vitreomacular traction; idiopathic macular hole; posterior vitreous detachment, retinal breaks, and lattice degeneration; retinal and ophthalmic artery occlusions; and retinal vein occlusions. The reliability of each review was evaluated using prespecified criteria. Data were extracted by 2 research assistants working independently, with disagreements resolved through discussion or by 1 research assistant with verification by a senior team member. Main Outcomes and Measures: Proportion of reviews that meet all of the following criteria: (1) defined eligibility criteria for study selection, (2) described conducting a comprehensive literature search, (3) reported assessing risk of bias in included studies, (4) described using appropriate methods for any meta-analysis performed, and (5) provided conclusions consistent with review findings. Results: A total of 327 systematic reviews that addressed retina and vitreous conditions were identified; of these, 131 reviews (40.1%) were classified as reliable and 196 reviews (59.9%) were classified as not reliable. At least 1 reliable review was found for each of the 7 retina and vitreous conditions. The most common reason that a review was classified as not reliable was lack of evidence that a comprehensive literature search for relevant studies had been conducted (149 of 196 reviews [76.0%]). Conclusion and Relevance: The findings of this study suggest that most systematic reviews that addressed interventions for retina and vitreous conditions were not reliable. Systematic review teams and guideline developers should work with information professionals who can help navigate sophisticated and varied syntaxes required to search different resources..

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85073590720&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85073590720&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2019.4016

DO - 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2019.4016

M3 - Article

C2 - 31600387

AN - SCOPUS:85073590720

SP - E1-E7

JO - JAMA Ophthalmology

JF - JAMA Ophthalmology

SN - 2168-6165

ER -