Patient-reported outcome measures in vitreoretinal surgery: a systematic review

7Citations
Citations of this article
30Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

This review article systematically reviews the use of Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in Vitreoretinal surgery, with the aim of recommending a preferred PROM-tool for use in clinical practice. Vitreoretinal surgery lags behind other ophthalmic subspecialties in the adoption of PROMs as a core outcome measure of success post-operatively. Current outcomes rely heavily on post-operative Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) and anatomical success on imaging modalities such as Ocular Coherence Tomography (OCT), despite the link between each of these measures and patient satisfaction being uncertain. We systematically reviewed the available literature in March 2021, in accordance with PRISMA guidelines, searching six databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, APA PsycINFO, SCOPUS and Cochrane Library. Critical appraisal of PROM-tools was facilitated using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) risk of bias checklist. We identified 14 eligible original research papers that used PROMs as a primary or secondary outcome of success post-operatively in patients having undergone vitreoretinal surgery. Eight different generic and vision-related PROM-tools were identified as being used in vitreoretinal studies, none of which were vitreoretinal-disease-specific. Our review article considers whether generic-health PROMs (e.g., EQ5D) or vision-related PROMs (e.g. NEI VFQ-25) are precise or responsive enough following vitreoretinal surgery to have a meaningful impact on clinical or research practice. We also consider the importance of standardisation of clinical outcomes in vitreoretinal clinical trials.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Yoganathan, A., Sandinha, T., Shamdas, M., Diafas, A., & Steel, D. (2023, February 1). Patient-reported outcome measures in vitreoretinal surgery: a systematic review. Eye (Basingstoke). Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-022-02073-8

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free