Missed opportunity from randomised controlled trials of medical interventions for open-angle glaucoma

Andrew Law, Kristina Lindsley, Benjamin Rouse, Richard Wormald, Kay Dickersin, Tianjing Li

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the extent to which intraocular pressure and visual field have been reported as outcomes in randomised controlled trials (also referred to as 'trials') of medical treatments for open-angle glaucoma. Methods: We identified published reports of trials in a systematic review of medical interventions for open-angle glaucoma our group conducted. We assessed whether intraocular pressure and visual field were reported as trial outcomes and classified them to be either completely or incompletely reported for meta-analysis. We also collected data on the length of time patients were followed and source of funding for the trial. Results: As of March 2014, we identified 401 trials that had enrolled 76 861 participants. Eighty per cent of 401 trials provided complete information on intraocular pressure and 11% of the 401 trials provided complete information on visual field. Only a minority of trials followed patients for at least 1 year. About half of all reports in our study stated that receiving funding from the industry. Conclusions: Although the vast majority of trials provided sufficient data for meta-analysis of the effect of medical management of open-angle glaucoma on intraocular pressure, relatively few provided data for analysing the effect on visual field. We considered this as missed opportunity because the data were not available for evidence synthesis. Investigators have an obligation to patients and providers to determine the comparative effectiveness of glaucoma interventions in terms of patient-important outcomes and not to waste data that could have been collected in trials.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1315-1317
Number of pages3
JournalBritish Journal of Ophthalmology
Volume101
Issue number10
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 1 2017

Fingerprint

Open Angle Glaucoma
Visual Fields
Intraocular Pressure
Randomized Controlled Trials
Meta-Analysis
Glaucoma
Industry
Research Personnel
Therapeutics

Keywords

  • Clinical Trial
  • Epidemiology
  • Glaucoma
  • Intraocular pressure
  • Public health

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ophthalmology
  • Sensory Systems
  • Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience

Cite this

Missed opportunity from randomised controlled trials of medical interventions for open-angle glaucoma. / Law, Andrew; Lindsley, Kristina; Rouse, Benjamin; Wormald, Richard; Dickersin, Kay; Li, Tianjing.

In: British Journal of Ophthalmology, Vol. 101, No. 10, 01.10.2017, p. 1315-1317.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Law, Andrew ; Lindsley, Kristina ; Rouse, Benjamin ; Wormald, Richard ; Dickersin, Kay ; Li, Tianjing. / Missed opportunity from randomised controlled trials of medical interventions for open-angle glaucoma. In: British Journal of Ophthalmology. 2017 ; Vol. 101, No. 10. pp. 1315-1317.
@article{ff94e6bd4d25480e984b47725ed35457,
title = "Missed opportunity from randomised controlled trials of medical interventions for open-angle glaucoma",
abstract = "Purpose: To evaluate the extent to which intraocular pressure and visual field have been reported as outcomes in randomised controlled trials (also referred to as 'trials') of medical treatments for open-angle glaucoma. Methods: We identified published reports of trials in a systematic review of medical interventions for open-angle glaucoma our group conducted. We assessed whether intraocular pressure and visual field were reported as trial outcomes and classified them to be either completely or incompletely reported for meta-analysis. We also collected data on the length of time patients were followed and source of funding for the trial. Results: As of March 2014, we identified 401 trials that had enrolled 76 861 participants. Eighty per cent of 401 trials provided complete information on intraocular pressure and 11{\%} of the 401 trials provided complete information on visual field. Only a minority of trials followed patients for at least 1 year. About half of all reports in our study stated that receiving funding from the industry. Conclusions: Although the vast majority of trials provided sufficient data for meta-analysis of the effect of medical management of open-angle glaucoma on intraocular pressure, relatively few provided data for analysing the effect on visual field. We considered this as missed opportunity because the data were not available for evidence synthesis. Investigators have an obligation to patients and providers to determine the comparative effectiveness of glaucoma interventions in terms of patient-important outcomes and not to waste data that could have been collected in trials.",
keywords = "Clinical Trial, Epidemiology, Glaucoma, Intraocular pressure, Public health",
author = "Andrew Law and Kristina Lindsley and Benjamin Rouse and Richard Wormald and Kay Dickersin and Tianjing Li",
year = "2017",
month = "10",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1136/bjophthalmol-2016-309695",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "101",
pages = "1315--1317",
journal = "British Journal of Ophthalmology",
issn = "0007-1161",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",
number = "10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Missed opportunity from randomised controlled trials of medical interventions for open-angle glaucoma

AU - Law, Andrew

AU - Lindsley, Kristina

AU - Rouse, Benjamin

AU - Wormald, Richard

AU - Dickersin, Kay

AU - Li, Tianjing

PY - 2017/10/1

Y1 - 2017/10/1

N2 - Purpose: To evaluate the extent to which intraocular pressure and visual field have been reported as outcomes in randomised controlled trials (also referred to as 'trials') of medical treatments for open-angle glaucoma. Methods: We identified published reports of trials in a systematic review of medical interventions for open-angle glaucoma our group conducted. We assessed whether intraocular pressure and visual field were reported as trial outcomes and classified them to be either completely or incompletely reported for meta-analysis. We also collected data on the length of time patients were followed and source of funding for the trial. Results: As of March 2014, we identified 401 trials that had enrolled 76 861 participants. Eighty per cent of 401 trials provided complete information on intraocular pressure and 11% of the 401 trials provided complete information on visual field. Only a minority of trials followed patients for at least 1 year. About half of all reports in our study stated that receiving funding from the industry. Conclusions: Although the vast majority of trials provided sufficient data for meta-analysis of the effect of medical management of open-angle glaucoma on intraocular pressure, relatively few provided data for analysing the effect on visual field. We considered this as missed opportunity because the data were not available for evidence synthesis. Investigators have an obligation to patients and providers to determine the comparative effectiveness of glaucoma interventions in terms of patient-important outcomes and not to waste data that could have been collected in trials.

AB - Purpose: To evaluate the extent to which intraocular pressure and visual field have been reported as outcomes in randomised controlled trials (also referred to as 'trials') of medical treatments for open-angle glaucoma. Methods: We identified published reports of trials in a systematic review of medical interventions for open-angle glaucoma our group conducted. We assessed whether intraocular pressure and visual field were reported as trial outcomes and classified them to be either completely or incompletely reported for meta-analysis. We also collected data on the length of time patients were followed and source of funding for the trial. Results: As of March 2014, we identified 401 trials that had enrolled 76 861 participants. Eighty per cent of 401 trials provided complete information on intraocular pressure and 11% of the 401 trials provided complete information on visual field. Only a minority of trials followed patients for at least 1 year. About half of all reports in our study stated that receiving funding from the industry. Conclusions: Although the vast majority of trials provided sufficient data for meta-analysis of the effect of medical management of open-angle glaucoma on intraocular pressure, relatively few provided data for analysing the effect on visual field. We considered this as missed opportunity because the data were not available for evidence synthesis. Investigators have an obligation to patients and providers to determine the comparative effectiveness of glaucoma interventions in terms of patient-important outcomes and not to waste data that could have been collected in trials.

KW - Clinical Trial

KW - Epidemiology

KW - Glaucoma

KW - Intraocular pressure

KW - Public health

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85030247962&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85030247962&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2016-309695

DO - 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2016-309695

M3 - Article

C2 - 28270487

AN - SCOPUS:85030247962

VL - 101

SP - 1315

EP - 1317

JO - British Journal of Ophthalmology

JF - British Journal of Ophthalmology

SN - 0007-1161

IS - 10

ER -