Reliability of the Evidence Addressing Treatment of Corneal Diseases

A Summary of Systematic Reviews

Ian J. Saldanha, Kristina B. Lindsley, Flora Lum, Kay Dickersin, Tianjing Li

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Abstract

Importance: Patient care should be informed by clinical practice guidelines, which in turn should be informed by evidence from reliable systematic reviews. The American Academy of Ophthalmology is updating its Preferred Practice Patterns (PPPs) for the management of the following 6 corneal diseases: bacterial keratitis, blepharitis, conjunctivitis, corneal ectasia, corneal edema and opacification, and dry eye syndrome. Objective: To summarize the reliability of the existing systematic reviews addressing interventions for corneal diseases. Data Source: The Cochrane Eyes and Vision US Satellite database. Study Selection: In this study of published systematic reviews from 1997 to 2017 (median, 2014), the Cochrane Eyes and Vision US Satellite database was searched for systematic reviews evaluating interventions for the management of any corneal disease, combining eyes and vision keywords and controlled vocabulary terms with a validated search filter. Data Extraction and Synthesis: The study classified systematic reviews as reliable when each of the following 5 criteria were met: the systematic review specified eligibility criteria for inclusion of studies, conducted a comprehensive literature search for studies, assessed risk of bias of the individual included studies, used appropriate methods for quantitative syntheses (meta-analysis) (only assessed if meta-analysis was performed), and had conclusions that were supported by the results of the systematic review. They were classified as unreliable if at least 1 criterion was not met. Main Outcomes and Measures: The proportion of systematic reviews that were reliable and the reasons for unreliability. Results: This study identified 98 systematic reviews that addressed interventions for 15 corneal diseases. Thirty-three of 98 systematic reviews (34%) were classified as unreliable. The most frequent reasons for unreliability were that the systematic review did not conduct a comprehensive literature search for studies (22 of 33 [67%]), did not assess risk of bias of the individual included studies (13 of 33 [39%]), and did not use appropriate methods for quantitative syntheses (meta-analysis) (12 of 17 systematic reviews that conducted a quantitative synthesis [71%]). Sixty-five of 98 systematic reviews (66%) were classified as reliable. Forty-two of the 65 reliable systematic reviews (65%) addressed corneal diseases relevant to the 2018 American Academy of Ophthalmology PPPs; 33 of these 42 systematic reviews (79%) are cited in the 2018 PPPs. Conclusions and Relevance: One in 3 systematic reviews addressing interventions for corneal diseases are unreliable and thus were not used to inform PPP recommendations. Careful adherence by systematic reviewers and journal editors to well-established best practices regarding systematic review conduct and reporting might help make future systematic reviews in eyes and vision more reliable.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalJAMA ophthalmology
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2019

Fingerprint

Corneal Diseases
Practice Guidelines
Meta-Analysis
Therapeutics
Dry Eye Syndromes
Blepharitis
Controlled Vocabulary
Databases
Corneal Edema
Pathologic Dilatations
Conjunctivitis
Keratitis
Information Storage and Retrieval
Practice Management
Patient Care
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ophthalmology

Cite this

Reliability of the Evidence Addressing Treatment of Corneal Diseases : A Summary of Systematic Reviews. / Saldanha, Ian J.; Lindsley, Kristina B.; Lum, Flora; Dickersin, Kay; Li, Tianjing.

In: JAMA ophthalmology, 01.01.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

@article{273af891cf584ce698864268f0140c3d,
title = "Reliability of the Evidence Addressing Treatment of Corneal Diseases: A Summary of Systematic Reviews",
abstract = "Importance: Patient care should be informed by clinical practice guidelines, which in turn should be informed by evidence from reliable systematic reviews. The American Academy of Ophthalmology is updating its Preferred Practice Patterns (PPPs) for the management of the following 6 corneal diseases: bacterial keratitis, blepharitis, conjunctivitis, corneal ectasia, corneal edema and opacification, and dry eye syndrome. Objective: To summarize the reliability of the existing systematic reviews addressing interventions for corneal diseases. Data Source: The Cochrane Eyes and Vision US Satellite database. Study Selection: In this study of published systematic reviews from 1997 to 2017 (median, 2014), the Cochrane Eyes and Vision US Satellite database was searched for systematic reviews evaluating interventions for the management of any corneal disease, combining eyes and vision keywords and controlled vocabulary terms with a validated search filter. Data Extraction and Synthesis: The study classified systematic reviews as reliable when each of the following 5 criteria were met: the systematic review specified eligibility criteria for inclusion of studies, conducted a comprehensive literature search for studies, assessed risk of bias of the individual included studies, used appropriate methods for quantitative syntheses (meta-analysis) (only assessed if meta-analysis was performed), and had conclusions that were supported by the results of the systematic review. They were classified as unreliable if at least 1 criterion was not met. Main Outcomes and Measures: The proportion of systematic reviews that were reliable and the reasons for unreliability. Results: This study identified 98 systematic reviews that addressed interventions for 15 corneal diseases. Thirty-three of 98 systematic reviews (34{\%}) were classified as unreliable. The most frequent reasons for unreliability were that the systematic review did not conduct a comprehensive literature search for studies (22 of 33 [67{\%}]), did not assess risk of bias of the individual included studies (13 of 33 [39{\%}]), and did not use appropriate methods for quantitative syntheses (meta-analysis) (12 of 17 systematic reviews that conducted a quantitative synthesis [71{\%}]). Sixty-five of 98 systematic reviews (66{\%}) were classified as reliable. Forty-two of the 65 reliable systematic reviews (65{\%}) addressed corneal diseases relevant to the 2018 American Academy of Ophthalmology PPPs; 33 of these 42 systematic reviews (79{\%}) are cited in the 2018 PPPs. Conclusions and Relevance: One in 3 systematic reviews addressing interventions for corneal diseases are unreliable and thus were not used to inform PPP recommendations. Careful adherence by systematic reviewers and journal editors to well-established best practices regarding systematic review conduct and reporting might help make future systematic reviews in eyes and vision more reliable.",
author = "Saldanha, {Ian J.} and Lindsley, {Kristina B.} and Flora Lum and Kay Dickersin and Tianjing Li",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2019.1063",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "JAMA Ophthalmology",
issn = "2168-6165",
publisher = "American Medical Association",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Reliability of the Evidence Addressing Treatment of Corneal Diseases

T2 - A Summary of Systematic Reviews

AU - Saldanha, Ian J.

AU - Lindsley, Kristina B.

AU - Lum, Flora

AU - Dickersin, Kay

AU - Li, Tianjing

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - Importance: Patient care should be informed by clinical practice guidelines, which in turn should be informed by evidence from reliable systematic reviews. The American Academy of Ophthalmology is updating its Preferred Practice Patterns (PPPs) for the management of the following 6 corneal diseases: bacterial keratitis, blepharitis, conjunctivitis, corneal ectasia, corneal edema and opacification, and dry eye syndrome. Objective: To summarize the reliability of the existing systematic reviews addressing interventions for corneal diseases. Data Source: The Cochrane Eyes and Vision US Satellite database. Study Selection: In this study of published systematic reviews from 1997 to 2017 (median, 2014), the Cochrane Eyes and Vision US Satellite database was searched for systematic reviews evaluating interventions for the management of any corneal disease, combining eyes and vision keywords and controlled vocabulary terms with a validated search filter. Data Extraction and Synthesis: The study classified systematic reviews as reliable when each of the following 5 criteria were met: the systematic review specified eligibility criteria for inclusion of studies, conducted a comprehensive literature search for studies, assessed risk of bias of the individual included studies, used appropriate methods for quantitative syntheses (meta-analysis) (only assessed if meta-analysis was performed), and had conclusions that were supported by the results of the systematic review. They were classified as unreliable if at least 1 criterion was not met. Main Outcomes and Measures: The proportion of systematic reviews that were reliable and the reasons for unreliability. Results: This study identified 98 systematic reviews that addressed interventions for 15 corneal diseases. Thirty-three of 98 systematic reviews (34%) were classified as unreliable. The most frequent reasons for unreliability were that the systematic review did not conduct a comprehensive literature search for studies (22 of 33 [67%]), did not assess risk of bias of the individual included studies (13 of 33 [39%]), and did not use appropriate methods for quantitative syntheses (meta-analysis) (12 of 17 systematic reviews that conducted a quantitative synthesis [71%]). Sixty-five of 98 systematic reviews (66%) were classified as reliable. Forty-two of the 65 reliable systematic reviews (65%) addressed corneal diseases relevant to the 2018 American Academy of Ophthalmology PPPs; 33 of these 42 systematic reviews (79%) are cited in the 2018 PPPs. Conclusions and Relevance: One in 3 systematic reviews addressing interventions for corneal diseases are unreliable and thus were not used to inform PPP recommendations. Careful adherence by systematic reviewers and journal editors to well-established best practices regarding systematic review conduct and reporting might help make future systematic reviews in eyes and vision more reliable.

AB - Importance: Patient care should be informed by clinical practice guidelines, which in turn should be informed by evidence from reliable systematic reviews. The American Academy of Ophthalmology is updating its Preferred Practice Patterns (PPPs) for the management of the following 6 corneal diseases: bacterial keratitis, blepharitis, conjunctivitis, corneal ectasia, corneal edema and opacification, and dry eye syndrome. Objective: To summarize the reliability of the existing systematic reviews addressing interventions for corneal diseases. Data Source: The Cochrane Eyes and Vision US Satellite database. Study Selection: In this study of published systematic reviews from 1997 to 2017 (median, 2014), the Cochrane Eyes and Vision US Satellite database was searched for systematic reviews evaluating interventions for the management of any corneal disease, combining eyes and vision keywords and controlled vocabulary terms with a validated search filter. Data Extraction and Synthesis: The study classified systematic reviews as reliable when each of the following 5 criteria were met: the systematic review specified eligibility criteria for inclusion of studies, conducted a comprehensive literature search for studies, assessed risk of bias of the individual included studies, used appropriate methods for quantitative syntheses (meta-analysis) (only assessed if meta-analysis was performed), and had conclusions that were supported by the results of the systematic review. They were classified as unreliable if at least 1 criterion was not met. Main Outcomes and Measures: The proportion of systematic reviews that were reliable and the reasons for unreliability. Results: This study identified 98 systematic reviews that addressed interventions for 15 corneal diseases. Thirty-three of 98 systematic reviews (34%) were classified as unreliable. The most frequent reasons for unreliability were that the systematic review did not conduct a comprehensive literature search for studies (22 of 33 [67%]), did not assess risk of bias of the individual included studies (13 of 33 [39%]), and did not use appropriate methods for quantitative syntheses (meta-analysis) (12 of 17 systematic reviews that conducted a quantitative synthesis [71%]). Sixty-five of 98 systematic reviews (66%) were classified as reliable. Forty-two of the 65 reliable systematic reviews (65%) addressed corneal diseases relevant to the 2018 American Academy of Ophthalmology PPPs; 33 of these 42 systematic reviews (79%) are cited in the 2018 PPPs. Conclusions and Relevance: One in 3 systematic reviews addressing interventions for corneal diseases are unreliable and thus were not used to inform PPP recommendations. Careful adherence by systematic reviewers and journal editors to well-established best practices regarding systematic review conduct and reporting might help make future systematic reviews in eyes and vision more reliable.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85065559659&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85065559659&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2019.1063

DO - 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2019.1063

M3 - Review article

JO - JAMA Ophthalmology

JF - JAMA Ophthalmology

SN - 2168-6165

ER -