Abstract
In 1972, Archie Cochrane wrote “It is surely a great criticism of our profession that we have not organised a critical summary, by specialty or subspecialty, adapted periodically, of all relevant randomised controlled trials”. The Cochrane Collaboration arose in response to Archie Cochrane’s challenge. Cochrane Eyes and Vision aims to prepare and promote access to systematic reviews of interventions for preventing or treating eye conditions and/or visual impairment, and helping people adjust to visual impairment or blindness. To identify all relevant randomised controlled trials, Cochrane Eyes and Vision has a team of information specialists who develop search strategies to identify studies for inclusion in Cochrane reviews. Since 1997 we have published 266 protocols, 193 new reviews and 158 updated reviews. The majority of these are reviews of intervention effectiveness; three reviews are diagnostic test accuracy reviews. Overall 18% of reviews contain no trials, highlighting a potential evidence gap. We provide training, education and guidance to systematic review authors and work with clinical and patient partners to prioritise and disseminate reviews. In addition, Cochrane Eyes and Vision US satellite carries out critical methodologic research addressing topics relevant to producing high-quality reviews. We are partnering with the journal Eye to publish commentaries on selected Cochrane systematic review findings. This partnership will allow us to make high-quality evidence available to ophthalmologists and other practitioners, researchers, policy makers and patients.
摘要
1972年, Archie Cochrane写道“由于没有组织对所有随机对照临床试验进行定期调整, 对相关专业或亚专业分类总结, 这无疑是对我们这一领域的一大批评”。Cochrane的协作是应Archie Cochrane的挑战应运而生的。Cochrane眼与视觉的宗旨旨在准备与促进对眼部疾病的干预的系统性回顾, 以预防/治疗视觉障碍或眼部疾病, 并帮助人们应对视觉障碍或失明。为了识别所有相关的随机对照试验, Cochrane眼与视觉拥有一个信息专家团队, 他们开发搜索引擎来识别纳入Cochrane综述的内容。自1997年以来, 我们已经发布了266个研究方案, 193个新综述和158个更新综述。其中大多数是对干预效果的综述;三个是诊断性测试准确性综述。总的来说, 18%的综述没有包含临床试验, 强调了一个潜在的证据间的沟壑。我们对系统性综述的作者提供培训、教育与指导, 并与临床上的合作伙伴和患者合作, 对综述进行优先排序和发布。此外, Cochrane眼与视觉美国的分支机构开展了关键的方法学研究, 着重于如何产出高质量的综述。我们正与《眼》杂志合作, 对选定的Cochrane系统综述结果进行评注。这种合作可使我们能够向眼科医生和其他医师、研究人员、政策决策者和患者提供高质量的 临床证据.
Similar content being viewed by others
Log in or create a free account to read this content
Gain free access to this article, as well as selected content from this journal and more on nature.com
or
References
Cochrane A. Effectiveness and efficiency. Random reflections on health services. London: Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust, 1972.
Chalmers I. The Cochrane collaboration: preparing, maintaining, and disseminating systematic reviews of the effects of health care. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1993;703:156–63.
Chandler J, Hopewell S. Cochrane methods–twenty years experience in developing systematic review methods. Syst Rev. 2013;2:76 https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-2-76.
Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d5928 https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d5928.
Sterne JA, Hernan MA, Reeves BC, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ. 2016;355:i4919 https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i4919.
Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2008;336:924–6. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.AD.
Rosenbaum SE, Glenton C, Nylund HK, Oxman AD. User testing and stakeholder feedback contributed to the development of understandable and useful Summary of Findings tables for Cochrane reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63:607–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.12.013.
Downie LE, Makrai E, Bonggotgetsakul Y, et al. Appraising the quality of systematic reviews for age-related macular degeneration interventions: a systematic review. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2018; https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2018.2620.
Ioannidis JP. The mass production of redundant, misleading, and conflicted systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Milbank Q. 2016;94:485–514. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.12210
Michelessi M, Lucenteforte E, Oddone F, et al. Optic nerve head and fibre layer imaging for diagnosing glaucoma. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews 2015:CD008803; https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008803.pub2.
Wallace BC, Noel-Storr A, Marshall IJ, Cohen AM, Smalheiser NR, Thomas J. Identifying reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) via a hybrid machine learning and crowdsourcing approach. J Am Med Inform Assoc: JAMIA. 2017;24:1165–68. https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocx053.
Evans JR, Lawrenson JG. Antioxidant vitamin and mineral supplements for slowing the progression of age-related macular degeneration. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;7:CD000254; https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD000254.pub4.
Li T, Ervin AM, Scherer R, Jampel H, Dickersin K. Setting priorities for comparative effectiveness research: a case study using primary open-angle glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 2010;117:1937–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2010.07.004.
Li T, Vedula SS, Scherer R, Dickersin K. 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;156:367–77. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-156-5-201203060-00009.
Le JT, Hutfless S, Li T, et al. Setting Priorities for Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research and Identifying Evidence Gaps. Ophthalmology. Retina. 2017;1:94–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oret.2016.10.003.
Saldanha IJ, Dickersin K, Hutfless ST, Akpek EK. Gaps in Current Knowledge and Priorities for Future Research in Dry Eye. Cornea. 2017;36:1584–91. https://doi.org/10.1097/ICO.0000000000001350.
Lindsley K, Li T, Ssemanda E, Virgili G, Dickersin K. Interventions for Age-Related Macular Degeneration: Are Practice Guidelines Based on Systematic Reviews? Ophthalmology. 2016;123:884–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2015.12.004.
Mayo-Wilson E, Ng SM, Chuck RS, Li T. The quality of systematic reviews about interventions for refractive error can be improved: a review of systematic reviews. BMC Ophthalmol. 2017;17:164 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-017-0561-9.
Golozar A, Chen Y, Lindsley K, et al. Identification and Description of Reliable Evidence for 2016 American Academy of Ophthalmology Preferred Practice Pattern Guidelines for Cataract in the Adult Eye. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2018;136:514–23. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2018.0786.
Scherer RW, Sieving PC, Ervin AM, Dickersin K. Can we depend on investigators to identify and register randomized controlled trials? PLoS One. 2012;7:e44183 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0044183.
Scherer RW, Huynh L, Ervin AM, Dickersin K. Using ClinicalTrials.gov to supplement information in ophthalmology conference abstracts about trial outcomes: a comparison study. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0130619 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0130619.
Scherer RW, Huynh L, Ervin AM, Taylor J, Dickersin K. ClinicalTrials.gov registration can supplement information in abstracts for systematic reviews: a comparison study. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;13:79 https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-13-79.
Li T, Vedula SS, Hadar N, Parkin C, Lau J, Dickersin K. Innovations in data collection, management, and archiving for systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162:287–94. https://doi.org/10.7326/M14-1603.
Korevaar DA, Cohen JF, de Ronde MW, Virgili G, Dickersin K, Bossuyt PM. Reporting weaknesses in conference abstracts of diagnostic accuracy studies in ophthalmology. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2015;133:1464–7. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2015.3577.
Saldanha IJ, Dickersin K, Wang X, Li T. Outcomes in Cochrane systematic reviews addressing four common eye conditions: an evaluation of completeness and comparability. PLoS One. 2014;9:e109400 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0109400.
Saldanha IJ, Lindsley K, Do DV, et al. Comparison of Clinical Trial and Systematic Review Outcomes for the 4 Most Prevalent Eye Diseases. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2017;135:933–40. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2017.2583.
Law A, Lindsley K, Rouse B, Wormald R, Dickersin K, Li T. Missed opportunity from randomised controlled trials of medical interventions for open-angle glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol. 2017;101:1315–17. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2016-309695.
Le JT, Viswanathan S, Tarver ME, Eydelman M, Li T. Assessment of the Incorporation of Patient-Centric Outcomes in Studies of Minimally Invasive Glaucoma Surgical Devices. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2016;134:1054–6. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2016.2101.
Saldanha IJ, Petris R, Han G, Dickersin K, Akpek EK Research Questions and Outcomes Prioritized by Patients With Dry Eye. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2018.3352.
Wang X, Hawkins BS, Dickersin K. Cochrane systematic reviews and co-publication: dissemination of evidence on interventions for ophthalmic conditions. Syst Rev. 2015;4:118 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-015-0104-5.
Li T, Lindsley K, Rouse B, et al. Comparative Effectiveness of First-Line Medications for Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis. Ophthalmology. 2016;123:129–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2015.09.005.
Rouse B, Cipriani A, Shi Q, Coleman AL, Dickersin K, Li T. Network Meta-analysis for Clinical Practice Guidelines: A Case Study on First-Line Medical Therapies for Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma. Ann Intern Med. 2016;164:674–82. https://doi.org/10.7326/M15-2367.
Ramke J, Evans JR, Gilbert CE Reducing inequity of cataract blindness and vision impairment is a global priority, but where is the evidence? BJO 2018 https://doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2018-311985.
Acknowledgements
Thank you to all the contributors to Cochrane Eyes and Vision particularly those working at the editorial base, editors (https://eyes.cochrane.org/cev-editorial-base) and satellites (https://eyes.cochrane.org/cev-us-satellite; https://eyes.cochrane.org/cev-italian-dta-satellite).
Funding
Cochrane Eyes and Vision is funded by a Cochrane Infrastructure Grant from the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR). Cochrane Eyes and Vision US satellite is funded by NIH grant UG1EY020522 (PI: Tianjing Li, MD, MHS, PhD). Richard Wormald is funded by financial support from the Department of Health through the award made by the NIHR to Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and UCL Institute of Ophthalmology for a Specialist Biomedical Research Centre for Ophthalmology. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the funders.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Consortia
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Evans, J., Li, T., Virgili, G. et al. Cochrane Eyes and Vision: a perspective introducing Cochrane Corner in Eye. Eye 33, 882–886 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-019-0357-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Version of record:
Issue date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-019-0357-7
