Consensus on Outcome Measures for Glaucoma Effectiveness Trials: Results From a Delphi and Nominal Group Technique Approaches

PURPOSE: Comparing the relative effectiveness of interventions across glaucoma trials can be problematic due to differences in definitions of outcomes. We sought to identify a key set of clinical outcomes and reach consensus on how best to measure them from the perspective of glaucoma experts.

METHODS: A 2-round electronic Delphi survey was conducted. Round 1 involved 25 items identified from a systematic review. Round 2 was developed based on information gathered in round 1. A 10-point Likert scale was used to quantify importance and consensus of outcomes (7 outcomes) and ways of measuring them (44 measures). Experts were identified through 2 glaucoma societies membership-the UK and Eire Glaucoma Society and the European Glaucoma Society. A Nominal Group Technique (NGT) followed the Delphi process. Results were analyzed using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS: A total of 65 participants completed round 1 out of 320; of whom 56 completed round 2 (86%). Agreement on the importance of outcomes was reached on 48/51 items (94%). Intraocular pressure (IOP), visual field (VF), safety, and anatomic outcomes were classified as highly important. Regarding methods of measurement of IOP, "mean follow-up IOP" using Goldmann applanation tonometry achieved the highest importance, whereas for evaluating VFs "global index mean deviation/defect (MD)" and "rate of VF progression" were the most important. Retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness measured by optical coherence tomography (OCT) was identified as highly important. The NGT results reached consensus on "change of IOP (mean of 3 consecutive measurements taken at fixed time of day) from baseline," change of VF-MD values (3 reliable VFs at baseline and follow-up visit) from baseline, and change of RNFL thickness (2 good quality OCT images) from baseline.

CONCLUSIONS: Consensus was reached among glaucoma experts on how best to measure IOP, VF, and anatomic outcomes in glaucoma randomized controlled trials.

Combining vitamin C and carotenoid biomarkers better predicts fruit and vegetable intake than individual biomarkers in dietary intervention studies

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to determine whether combining potential biomarkers of fruit and vegetables is better at predicting FV intake within FV intervention studies than single biomarkers.

DESIGN: Data from a tightly controlled randomised FV intervention study (BIOFAV; all food provided and two meals/day on weekdays consumed under supervision) were used. A total of 30 participants were randomised to either 2, 5 or 8 portions FV/day for 4 weeks, and blood samples were collected at baseline and 4 weeks for plasma vitamin C and serum carotenoid analysis. The combined biomarker approach was also tested in three further FV intervention studies conducted by the same research team, with less strict dietary control (FV provided and no supervised meals).

RESULTS: The combined model containing all carotenoids and vitamin C was a better fit than either the vitamin C only (P < 0.001) model or the lutein only (P = 0.006) model in the BIOFAV study. The C-statistic was slightly lower in the lutein only model (0.85) and in the model based upon factor analysis (0.88), and much lower in the vitamin C model (0.68) compared with the full model (0.95). Results for the other studies were similar, although the differences between the models were less marked.

CONCLUSIONS: Although there was some variation between studies, which may relate to the level of dietary control or participant characteristics, a combined biomarker approach to assess overall FV consumption may more accurately predict FV intake within intervention studies than the use of a single biomarker. The generalisability of these findings to other populations and study designs remains to be tested. 

Explaining variation in cancer survival between 11 jurisdictions in the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership: a primary care vignette survey

OBJECTIVES: The International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP) is a collaboration between 6 countries and 12 jurisdictions with similar primary care-led health services. This study investigates primary care physician (PCP) behaviour and systems that may contribute to the timeliness of investigating for cancer and subsequently, international survival differences.

DESIGN: A validated survey administered to PCPs via the internet set out in two parts: direct questions on primary care structure and practice relating to cancer diagnosis, and clinical vignettes, assessing management of scenarios relating to the diagnosis of lung, colorectal or ovarian cancer.

PARTICIPANTS: 2795 PCPs in 11 jurisdictions: New South Wales and Victoria (Australia), British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario (Canada), England, Northern Ireland, Wales (UK), Denmark, Norway and Sweden.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Analysis compared the cumulative proportion of PCPs in each jurisdiction opting to investigate or refer at each phase for each vignette with 1-year survival, and conditional 5-year survival rates for the relevant cancer and jurisdiction. Logistic regression was used to explore whether PCP characteristics or system differences in each jurisdiction affected the readiness to investigate.

RESULTS: 4 of 5 vignettes showed a statistically significant correlation (p<0.05 or better) between readiness to investigate or refer to secondary care at the first phase of each vignette and cancer survival rates for that jurisdiction. No consistent associations were found between readiness to investigate and selected PCP demographics, practice or health system variables.

CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate a correlation between the readiness of PCPs to investigate symptoms indicative of cancer and cancer survival rates, one of the first possible explanations for the variation in cancer survival between ICBP countries. No specific health system features consistently explained these findings. Some jurisdictions may consider lowering thresholds for PCPs to investigate for cancer-either directly, or by specialist referral, to improve outcomes.

Can I Count on Getting Better? Association between Math Anxiety and Poorer Understanding of Medical Risk Reductions

BACKGROUND: Lower numerical ability is associated with poorer understanding of health statistics, such as risk reductions of medical treatment. For many people, despite good numeracy skills, math provokes anxiety that impedes an ability to evaluate numerical information. Math-anxious individuals also report less confidence in their ability to perform math tasks. We hypothesized that, independent of objective numeracy, math anxiety would be associated with poorer responding and lower confidence when calculating risk reductions of medical treatments.

METHODS: Objective numeracy was assessed using an 11-item objective numeracy scale. A 13-item self-report scale was used to assess math anxiety. In experiment 1, participants were asked to interpret the baseline risk of disease and risk reductions associated with treatment options. Participants in experiment 2 were additionally provided a graphical display designed to facilitate the processing of math information and alleviate effects of math anxiety. Confidence ratings were provided on a 7-point scale.

RESULTS: Individuals of higher objective numeracy were more likely to respond correctly to baseline risks and risk reductions associated with treatment options and were more confident in their interpretations. Individuals who scored high in math anxiety were instead less likely to correctly interpret the baseline risks and risk reductions and were less confident in their risk calculations as well as in their assessments of the effectiveness of treatment options. Math anxiety predicted confidence levels but not correct responding when controlling for objective numeracy. The graphical display was most effective in increasing confidence among math-anxious individuals.

CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that math anxiety is associated with poorer medical risk interpretation but is more strongly related to confidence in interpretations.

Functional identity and diversity of animals predict ecosystem functioning better than species-based indices

Drastic biodiversity declines have raised concerns about the deterioration of ecosystem functions and have motivated much recent research on the relationship between species diversity and ecosystem functioning. A functional trait framework has been proposed to improve the mechanistic understanding of this relationship, but this has rarely been tested for organisms other than plants. We analysed eight datasets, including five animal groups, to examine how well a trait-based approach, compared with a more traditional taxonomic approach, predicts seven ecosystem functions below- and above-ground. Trait-based indices consistently provided greater explanatory power than species richness or abundance. The frequency distributions of single or multiple traits in the community were the best predictors of ecosystem functioning. This implies that the ecosystem functions we investigated were underpinned by the combination of trait identities (i.e. single-trait indices) and trait complementarity (i.e. multi-trait indices) in the communities. Our study provides new insights into the general mechanisms that link biodiversity to ecosystem functioning in natural animal communities and suggests that the observed responses were due to the identity and dominance patterns of the trait composition rather than the number or abundance of species per se.

COS-STAR: a reporting guideline for studies developing core outcome sets (protocol)

BACKGROUND: Core outcome sets can increase the efficiency and value of research and, as a result, there are an increasing number of studies looking to develop core outcome sets (COS). However, the credibility of a COS depends on both the use of sound methodology in its development and clear and transparent reporting of the processes adopted. To date there is no reporting guideline for reporting COS studies. The aim of this programme of research is to develop a reporting guideline for studies developing COS and to highlight some of the important methodological considerations in the process.

METHODS/DESIGN: The study will include a reporting guideline item generation stage which will then be used in a Delphi study. The Delphi study is anticipated to include two rounds. The first round will ask stakeholders to score the items listed and to add any new items they think are relevant. In the second round of the process, participants will be shown the distribution of scores for all stakeholder groups separately and asked to re-score. A final consensus meeting will be held with an expert panel and stakeholder representatives to review the guideline item list. Following the consensus meeting, a reporting guideline will be drafted and review and testing will be undertaken until the guideline is finalised. The final outcome will be the COS-STAR (Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Reporting) guideline for studies developing COS and a supporting explanatory document.

DISCUSSION: To assess the credibility and usefulness of a COS, readers of a COS development report need complete, clear and transparent information on its methodology and proposed core set of outcomes. The COS-STAR guideline will potentially benefit all stakeholders in COS development: COS developers, COS users, e.g. trialists and systematic reviewers, journal editors, policy-makers and patient groups.

Towards core outcome set (COS) development: a follow-up descriptive survey of outcomes in Cochrane reviews

BACKGROUND: A core outcome set (COS) can address problems of outcome heterogeneity and outcome reporting bias in trials and systematic reviews, including Cochrane reviews, helping to reduce waste. One of the aims of the international Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) Initiative is to link the development and use of COS with the outcomes specified and reported in Cochrane reviews, including the outcomes listed in the summary of findings (SoF) tables. As part of this work, an earlier exploratory survey of the outcomes of newly published 2007 and 2011 Cochrane reviews was performed. This survey examined the use of COS, the variety of specified outcomes, and outcome reporting in Cochrane reviews by Cochrane Review Group (CRG). To examine changes over time and to explore outcomes that were repeatedly specified over time in Cochrane reviews by CRG, we conducted a follow-up survey of outcomes in 2013 Cochrane reviews.

METHODS: A descriptive survey of outcomes in Cochrane reviews that were first published in 2013. Outcomes specified in the methods sections and reported in the results section of the Cochrane reviews were examined by CRG. We also explored the uptake of SoF tables, the number of outcomes included in these, and the quality of the evidence for the outcomes.

RESULTS: Across the 50 CRGs, 375 Cochrane reviews that included at least one study specified a total of 3142 outcomes. Of these outcomes, 32 % (1008) were not reported in the results section of these reviews. For 23 % (233) of these non-reported outcomes, we did not find any reason in the text of the review for this non-report. Fifty-seven percent (216/375) of reviews included a SoF table.

CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of specified outcomes that were reported in Cochrane reviews had increased in 2013 (68 %) compared to 2007 (61 %) and 2011 (65 %). Importantly, 2013 Cochrane reviews that did not report specified outcomes were twice as likely to provide an explanation for why the outcome was not reported. There has been an increased uptake of SoF tables in Cochrane reviews. Outcomes that were repeatedly specified in Cochrane reviews by CRG in 2007, 2011, and 2013 may assist COS development.

Hospitalization in Geriatric Wards: Considerations on the Evaluation of the Outcome

Within a defined law framework, the Italian central health system dictates the standards for hospitalization to local care units, which are in turn allowed to establish their own effectiveness criteria. The appropriateness of the hospitalization decision is therefore predetermined at patients admission, whereas its effectiveness relies on the ex post patient well-being as a result of the complex system of reciprocal relations between patients and healthcare agents at the ward level. We consider the outcomes in geriatric wards referring to the national health system, with respect both to patients traits at the individual level and wards/hospital settings. The risk that models the healthcare outcome is accordingly adjusted for covariates at the different levels of analysis (Goldstein & Spiegelhalter, 1996), thus allowing to differentiate among outcomes in terms of the hospitalization structure and, when appropriate, of territorial aggregation.

Safety of Spectacles for Children's Vision: A Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial.

Purpose: To study safety of children’s glasses in rural China, where fear that glasses harm vision is an important barrier for families and policy-makers. Design: Exploratory analysis from a cluster-randomized, investigator-masked, controlled trial.Methods: Among primary schools (n=252) in western China, children were randomized by school to one of three interventions: free glasses provided in class, vouchers for free glasses at a local facility or glasses prescriptions only (Control group). The main outcome of this analysis is uncorrected visual acuity after 8 months, adjusted for baseline acuity.Results: Among 19,934 children randomly selected for screening, 5852 myopic (spherical equivalent refractive error <= -0.5 D) eyes of 3001 children (14.7%, mean age 10.5 years) had VA <= 6/12 without glasses correctable to > 6/12 with glasses, and were eligible. Among these, 1903 (32.5%), 1798 (30.7%), and 2151 (36.8%) were randomized to Control, Voucher and Free Glasses respectively. Intention-to-treat analyses were performed on all 1831 (96.2%), 1699 (94.5%), and 2007 (93.3%) eyes of children with follow-up in Control, Voucher and Free Glasses groups. Final visual acuity for eyes of children in the treatment groups (Free Glasses and Voucher) was significantly better than for Control children, adjusting only for baseline visual acuity (difference of 0.023 logMAR units [0.23 vision chart lines, 95% CI: 0.03, 0.43]) or for other baseline factors as well (0.025 logMAR units [0.25 lines, 95% CI 0.04, 0.45]). Conclusion: We found no evidence that spectacles promote decline in uncorrected vision with aging among children.

Glycine betaine-mediated protection of peas (Pisum sativum L.) during blanching and frozen storage

We used glycine betaine (5–20% w/v) for blanching green peas (100°C, 60 s), and their subsequent freezing and storage (–20°C, 90 days). Blanching after the addition of glycine betaine at ≥10% (w/v) followed by a 90 day storage period which resulted in the most desirable outcome: higher vitamin C levels, a superior green color, enhanced organoleptic quality and texture, and improved retention of peroxidase and lipoxygenase activity relative to control peas (no glycine betaine added). Microscopic characterizations of control and treated peas revealed that glycine betaine acts as a cryoprotectant which maintains cellular integrity. Glycine betaine (10% w/v) could be used commercially for production of frozen peas with better quality attributes.