Setting Priorities for Comparative Effectiveness Research on Management of Primary Angle Closure: A Survey of Asia-Pacific Clinicians

Journal of Glaucoma

Volumn 24, Issue 5, 2015, Pages 348-355

  Yu, Tsung ^a   Li, Tianjing ^a   Lee, Kinbo J ^a   Friedman, David S ^a,b   Dickersin, Kay ^a   Puhan, Milo A ^a  

^a JOHNS HOPKINS BLOOMBERG SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^b JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

angle closure; comparative effectiveness research; cross sectional studies; glaucoma; health priorities

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLOSED ANGLE GLAUCOMA; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; HUMAN; IRIDOTOMY; LASER; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PATIENT CARE; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIMARY ANGLE CLOSURE GLAUCOMA; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUESTIONNAIRE; ADULT; AGED; ASIA; CLINICAL PRACTICE; GLAUCOMA, ANGLE-CLOSURE; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HEALTH SURVEY; INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE; IRIDECTOMY; IRIS; LOW LEVEL LASER THERAPY; MEDICAL SOCIETY; MIDDLE AGED; OPHTHALMOLOGY; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PACIFIC ISLANDS; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PHYSIOLOGY; STANDARDS;

ADULT; AGED; ASIA; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH; GLAUCOMA, ANGLE-CLOSURE; HEALTH SURVEYS; HUMANS; INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE; IRIDECTOMY; IRIS; LASER THERAPY; MIDDLE AGED; OPHTHALMOLOGY; PACIFIC ISLANDS; PRACTICE PATTERNS, PHYSICIANS'; QUALITY OF HEALTH CARE; SOCIETIES, MEDICAL; SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES;

EID: 84931561824     PISSN: 10570829     EISSN: 1536481X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/IJG.0b013e31829e5616     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Quigley HA, Broman AT. The number of people with glaucoma worldwide in 2010 and 2020. Br J Ophthalmol. 2006;90:262-267.
2. Foster PJ, Oen FT, Machin D, et al. The prevalence of glaucoma in Chinese residents of Singapore: a cross-sectional population survey of the Tanjong Pagar district. Arch Ophthalmol. 2000;118:1105-1111.
3. He M, Foster PJ, Ge J, et al. Prevalence and clinical characteristics of glaucoma in adult Chinese: a population-based study in Liwan District, Guangzhou. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006;47:2782-2788.
4. Vijaya L, George R, Arvind H, et al. Prevalence of angle-closure disease in a rural southern Indian population. Arch Ophthalmol. 2006;124:403-409.
5. Foster PJ, Johnson GJ. Glaucoma in China: how big is the problem? Br J Ophthalmol. 2001;85:1277-1282.
6. Committee on Comparative Effectiveness Research Prioritization, Board on Health Care Services, Institute of Medicine. Initial National Priorities for Comparative Effectiveness Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press Available at: http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record-id=12648. Accessed September 1, 2011; 2009.
7. Sox HC, Greenfield S. Comparative effectiveness research: a report from the institute of medicine. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:203-205.
8. Smith N, Mitton C, Peacock S, et al. Identifying research priorities for health care priority setting: a collaborative effort between managers and researchers. BMC Health Serv Res. 2009;9:165.
9. Whitlock EP, Lopez SA, Chang S, et al. AHRQ series paper 3: identifying, selecting, and refining topics for comparative effectiveness systematic reviews: AHRQ and the effective health-care program. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63:491-501.
10. Nasser M, Welch V, Tugwell P, et al. Ensuring relevance for Cochrane reviews: evaluating processes and methods for prioritizing topics for Cochrane reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66:474-482.
11. Noorani HZ, Husereau DR, Boudreau R, et al. Priority setting for health technology assessments: a systematic review of current practical approaches. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23:310-315.
12. Li T, Ervin AM, Scherer R, et al. Setting priorities for comparative effectiveness research: a case study using primary open-angle glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 2010;117:1937-1945.
13. Li T, Vedula SS, Scherer R, et al. What comparative effectiveness research is needed? A framework for using guidelines and systematic reviews to identify evidence gaps and research priorities. Ann Intern Med. 2012;156:367-377.
14. American Academy of Ophthalmology Glaucoma Panel. Preferred Practice Pattern Guidelines. Primary Angle Closure. San Francisco, CA: American Academy of Ophthalmology Available at: http://one.aao.org/CE/PracticeGuidelines/PPP-Content.aspx?cid=92bea8f6-5459-49a6-9233-4528343dc4c3. Accessed September 1, 2011; 2010.
15. Foster P, He M, Liebmann J. Epidemiology, classification and mechanism. In: Weinreb R, Friedman D, eds. Angle Closure and Angle Closure Glaucoma. The Hague, the Netherlands: Kugler Publications; 2006.
16. Cheng J, Cai J, Li Y, et al. A meta-analysis of topical prostaglandin analogs in the treatment of chronic angle-closure glaucoma. J Glaucoma. 2009;18:652-657.
17. Friedman DS, Vedula SS. Lens extraction for chronic angle-closure glaucoma. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;CD005555.
18. Ng WS, Ang GS, Azuara-Blanco A. Laser peripheral iridoplasty for angle-closure. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;2:CD006746.
19. Saw SM, Gazzard G, Friedman DS. Interventions for angleclosure glaucoma: an evidence-based update. Ophthalmology. 2003;110:1869-1878.
20. Shah R, Wormald RP. Glaucoma. Clin Evid (Online). 2011;pii:0703.
21. Lowe RF. Acute angle-closure glaucoma: the second eye: an analysis of 200 cases. Br J Ophthalmol. 1962;46:641-650.
22. Asymptomatic Narrow Angles - Laser Iridotomy Study. Available at: http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00347178. Accessed September 1, 2011.
23. Jiang Y, Friedman DS, He M, et al. Design and methodology of a randomized controlled trial of laser iridotomy for the prevention of angle closure in southern china: the Zhongshan Angle Closure Prevention Trial. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2010;17:321-332.
24. Viergever RF, Olifson S, Ghaffar A, et al. A checklist for health research priority setting: nine common themes of good practice. Health Res Policy Syst. 2010;8:36.
25. South East Asia Glaucoma Interest Group. Asia Pacific Glaucoma Guidelines. Sydney: SEAGIG Available at: http://www.seagig.org/toc/APGG2-fullversionNMview.pdf. Accessed September 1, 2011; 2008.
26. Ou Y, Goldberg I, Migdal C, et al. A critical appraisal and comparison of the quality and recommendations of glaucoma clinical practice guidelines. Ophthalmology. 2011;118:1017-1023.
27. Asch DA, Jedrziewski MK, Christakis NA. Response rates to mail surveys published in medical journals. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997;50:1129-1136.
28. Kellerman SE, Herold J. Physician response to surveys. A review of the literature. Am J Prev Med. 2001;20:61-67.