Interventions for Age-Related Macular Degeneration. Are Practice Guidelines Based on Systematic Reviews?

Kristina Lindsley, Tianjing Li, Elizabeth Ssemanda, Gianni Virgili, Kay Dickersin

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose: Are existing systematic reviews of interventions for age-related macular degeneration incorporated into clinical practice guidelines? Design: High-quality systematic reviews should be used to underpin evidence-based clinical practice guidelines and clinical care. We examined the reliability of systematic reviews of interventions for age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and described the main findings of reliable reviews in relation to clinical practice guidelines. Methods: Eligible publications were systematic reviews of the effectiveness of treatment interventions for AMD. We searched a database of systematic reviews in eyes and vision without language or date restrictions; the database was up to date as of May 6, 2014. Two authors independently screened records for eligibility and abstracted and assessed the characteristics and methods of each review. We classified reviews as reliable when they reported eligibility criteria, comprehensive searches, methodologic quality of included studies, appropriate statistical methods for meta-analysis, and conclusions based on results. We mapped treatment recommendations from the American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO) Preferred Practice Patterns (PPPs) for AMD to systematic reviews and citations of reliable systematic reviews to support each treatment recommendation. Results: Of 1570 systematic reviews in our database, 47 met inclusion criteria; most targeted neovascular AMD and investigated anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) interventions, dietary supplements, or photodynamic therapy. We classified 33 (70%) reviews as reliable. The quality of reporting varied, with criteria for reliable reporting met more often by Cochrane reviews and reviews whose authors disclosed conflicts of interest. Anti-VEGF agents and photodynamic therapy were the only interventions identified as effective by reliable reviews. Of 35 treatment recommendations extracted from the PPPs, 15 could have been supported with reliable systematic reviews; however, only 1 recommendation cited a reliable intervention systematic review. No reliable systematic review was identified for 20 treatment recommendations, highlighting areas of evidence gaps. Conclusions: For AMD, reliable systematic reviews exist for many treatment recommendations in the AAO PPPs and should be cited to support these recommendations. We also identified areas where no high-level evidence exists. Mapping clinical practice guidelines to existing systematic reviews is one way to highlight areas where evidence generation or evidence synthesis is either available or needed.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalOphthalmology
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Oct 7 2015

Fingerprint

Macular Degeneration
Practice Guidelines
Photochemotherapy
Databases
Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A
Therapeutics
Conflict of Interest
Evidence-Based Practice
Ophthalmology
Dietary Supplements
Publications
Meta-Analysis
Language

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ophthalmology

Cite this

Interventions for Age-Related Macular Degeneration. Are Practice Guidelines Based on Systematic Reviews? / Lindsley, Kristina; Li, Tianjing; Ssemanda, Elizabeth; Virgili, Gianni; Dickersin, Kay.

In: Ophthalmology, 07.10.2015.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{c55a1f69ce1947ffa5be8cc20ef4f893,
title = "Interventions for Age-Related Macular Degeneration. Are Practice Guidelines Based on Systematic Reviews?",
abstract = "Purpose: Are existing systematic reviews of interventions for age-related macular degeneration incorporated into clinical practice guidelines? Design: High-quality systematic reviews should be used to underpin evidence-based clinical practice guidelines and clinical care. We examined the reliability of systematic reviews of interventions for age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and described the main findings of reliable reviews in relation to clinical practice guidelines. Methods: Eligible publications were systematic reviews of the effectiveness of treatment interventions for AMD. We searched a database of systematic reviews in eyes and vision without language or date restrictions; the database was up to date as of May 6, 2014. Two authors independently screened records for eligibility and abstracted and assessed the characteristics and methods of each review. We classified reviews as reliable when they reported eligibility criteria, comprehensive searches, methodologic quality of included studies, appropriate statistical methods for meta-analysis, and conclusions based on results. We mapped treatment recommendations from the American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO) Preferred Practice Patterns (PPPs) for AMD to systematic reviews and citations of reliable systematic reviews to support each treatment recommendation. Results: Of 1570 systematic reviews in our database, 47 met inclusion criteria; most targeted neovascular AMD and investigated anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) interventions, dietary supplements, or photodynamic therapy. We classified 33 (70{\%}) reviews as reliable. The quality of reporting varied, with criteria for reliable reporting met more often by Cochrane reviews and reviews whose authors disclosed conflicts of interest. Anti-VEGF agents and photodynamic therapy were the only interventions identified as effective by reliable reviews. Of 35 treatment recommendations extracted from the PPPs, 15 could have been supported with reliable systematic reviews; however, only 1 recommendation cited a reliable intervention systematic review. No reliable systematic review was identified for 20 treatment recommendations, highlighting areas of evidence gaps. Conclusions: For AMD, reliable systematic reviews exist for many treatment recommendations in the AAO PPPs and should be cited to support these recommendations. We also identified areas where no high-level evidence exists. Mapping clinical practice guidelines to existing systematic reviews is one way to highlight areas where evidence generation or evidence synthesis is either available or needed.",
author = "Kristina Lindsley and Tianjing Li and Elizabeth Ssemanda and Gianni Virgili and Kay Dickersin",
year = "2015",
month = "10",
day = "7",
doi = "10.1016/j.ophtha.2015.12.004",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Ophthalmology",
issn = "0161-6420",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Interventions for Age-Related Macular Degeneration. Are Practice Guidelines Based on Systematic Reviews?

AU - Lindsley, Kristina

AU - Li, Tianjing

AU - Ssemanda, Elizabeth

AU - Virgili, Gianni

AU - Dickersin, Kay

PY - 2015/10/7

Y1 - 2015/10/7

N2 - Purpose: Are existing systematic reviews of interventions for age-related macular degeneration incorporated into clinical practice guidelines? Design: High-quality systematic reviews should be used to underpin evidence-based clinical practice guidelines and clinical care. We examined the reliability of systematic reviews of interventions for age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and described the main findings of reliable reviews in relation to clinical practice guidelines. Methods: Eligible publications were systematic reviews of the effectiveness of treatment interventions for AMD. We searched a database of systematic reviews in eyes and vision without language or date restrictions; the database was up to date as of May 6, 2014. Two authors independently screened records for eligibility and abstracted and assessed the characteristics and methods of each review. We classified reviews as reliable when they reported eligibility criteria, comprehensive searches, methodologic quality of included studies, appropriate statistical methods for meta-analysis, and conclusions based on results. We mapped treatment recommendations from the American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO) Preferred Practice Patterns (PPPs) for AMD to systematic reviews and citations of reliable systematic reviews to support each treatment recommendation. Results: Of 1570 systematic reviews in our database, 47 met inclusion criteria; most targeted neovascular AMD and investigated anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) interventions, dietary supplements, or photodynamic therapy. We classified 33 (70%) reviews as reliable. The quality of reporting varied, with criteria for reliable reporting met more often by Cochrane reviews and reviews whose authors disclosed conflicts of interest. Anti-VEGF agents and photodynamic therapy were the only interventions identified as effective by reliable reviews. Of 35 treatment recommendations extracted from the PPPs, 15 could have been supported with reliable systematic reviews; however, only 1 recommendation cited a reliable intervention systematic review. No reliable systematic review was identified for 20 treatment recommendations, highlighting areas of evidence gaps. Conclusions: For AMD, reliable systematic reviews exist for many treatment recommendations in the AAO PPPs and should be cited to support these recommendations. We also identified areas where no high-level evidence exists. Mapping clinical practice guidelines to existing systematic reviews is one way to highlight areas where evidence generation or evidence synthesis is either available or needed.

AB - Purpose: Are existing systematic reviews of interventions for age-related macular degeneration incorporated into clinical practice guidelines? Design: High-quality systematic reviews should be used to underpin evidence-based clinical practice guidelines and clinical care. We examined the reliability of systematic reviews of interventions for age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and described the main findings of reliable reviews in relation to clinical practice guidelines. Methods: Eligible publications were systematic reviews of the effectiveness of treatment interventions for AMD. We searched a database of systematic reviews in eyes and vision without language or date restrictions; the database was up to date as of May 6, 2014. Two authors independently screened records for eligibility and abstracted and assessed the characteristics and methods of each review. We classified reviews as reliable when they reported eligibility criteria, comprehensive searches, methodologic quality of included studies, appropriate statistical methods for meta-analysis, and conclusions based on results. We mapped treatment recommendations from the American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO) Preferred Practice Patterns (PPPs) for AMD to systematic reviews and citations of reliable systematic reviews to support each treatment recommendation. Results: Of 1570 systematic reviews in our database, 47 met inclusion criteria; most targeted neovascular AMD and investigated anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) interventions, dietary supplements, or photodynamic therapy. We classified 33 (70%) reviews as reliable. The quality of reporting varied, with criteria for reliable reporting met more often by Cochrane reviews and reviews whose authors disclosed conflicts of interest. Anti-VEGF agents and photodynamic therapy were the only interventions identified as effective by reliable reviews. Of 35 treatment recommendations extracted from the PPPs, 15 could have been supported with reliable systematic reviews; however, only 1 recommendation cited a reliable intervention systematic review. No reliable systematic review was identified for 20 treatment recommendations, highlighting areas of evidence gaps. Conclusions: For AMD, reliable systematic reviews exist for many treatment recommendations in the AAO PPPs and should be cited to support these recommendations. We also identified areas where no high-level evidence exists. Mapping clinical practice guidelines to existing systematic reviews is one way to highlight areas where evidence generation or evidence synthesis is either available or needed.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84956926399&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84956926399&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.ophtha.2015.12.004

DO - 10.1016/j.ophtha.2015.12.004

M3 - Article

C2 - 26804762

AN - SCOPUS:84956926399

JO - Ophthalmology

JF - Ophthalmology

SN - 0161-6420

ER -