Suchergebnisse

Funding Information: The author(s) have made the following disclosure(s): R.G.: Personal fees ? Heidelberg Engineering.S.S.: Grants and personal fees ? Bayer, during the conduct of the study; Grants and personal fees ? Novartis, Boehringer Ingleheim; Grants ? Allergan, Roche; Personal fees ? Apellis, Oxurion, Heidelberg Engineering, Optos, outside the submitted work; Funded by the Moorfields Biomedical Research Centre and Clinical Research Facility.The project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme (Project Number: 12/142/07) and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment. The Health Services Research Unit and the Health Economics Research Unit are core funded by the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorate. F.G.: Grants ? NIHR, during the conduct of the study; Grants and personal fees ? Novartis, Roche, Bayer; Personal fees ? Allergan, Alimera; Grants ? Chengdu Pharma; Grants and nonfinancial support ? NIHR, outside the submitted work. J.A.C.: Study grant ? NIHR. K.B.: Grants ? NIHR HTA Programme, during the conduct of the study. Obtained funding: Chakravarthy, Ramsay, Sivaprasad, Scotland, Azuara-Blanco, Heiman and Cook Publisher Copyright: © 2021 ; Peer reviewed ; Publisher PDF

AbstractIntroductionSystematic reviews are important to inform decision‐making for evidence‐based health care and patient choice. Deciding which reviews should be prioritized is a key issue for decision‐makers and researchers. Cochrane Eyes and Vision conducted a priority setting exercise for systematic reviews in eye health care.MethodsWe established a steering group including practitioners, patient organizations, and researchers. To identify potential systematic review questions, we searched global policy reports, research prioritization exercises, guidelines, systematic review databases, and the Cochrane Library (CENTRAL). We grouped questions into separate condition lists and conducted a two‐round online modified Delphi survey, including a ranking request. Participants in the survey were recruited through social media and the networks of the steering group.ResultsIn Round 1, 343 people ranked one or more of the condition lists. Participants were eye care practitioners (69%), researchers (37%), patients or carers (24%), research providers/funders (5%), or noneye health care practitioners (4%) and from all World Health Organization regions. Two hundred twenty‐six people expressed interest in completing Round 2 and 160 of these (71%) completed the Round 2 survey. Reviews on cataract and refractive error, reviews relevant to children, and reviews on rehabilitation were considered to have an important impact on the magnitude of disease and equity. Narrative comments emphasized the need for reviews on access to eye health care, particularly for underserved groups, including people with intellectual disabilities.ConclusionA global group of stakeholders prioritized questions on the effective and equitable delivery of services for eye health care. When considering the impact of systematic reviews in terms of reducing the burden of eye conditions, equity is clearly an important criterion to consider in priority‐setting exercises.

TOPIC: To estimate the prevalence of nonrefractive visual impairment and blindness in European persons 55 years of age and older. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Few visual impairment and blindness prevalence estimates are available for the European population. In addition, many of the data collected in European population-based studies currently are unpublished and have not been included in previous estimates. METHODS: Fourteen European population-based studies participating in the European Eye Epidemiology Consortium (n = 70 723) were included. Each study provided nonrefractive visual impairment and blindness prevalence estimates stratified by age (10-year strata) and gender. Nonrefractive visual impairment and blindness were defined as best-corrected visual acuity worse than 20/60 and 20/400 in the better eye, respectively. Using random effects meta-analysis, prevalence rates were estimated according to age, gender, geographical area, and period (1991-2006 and 2007-2012). Because no data were available for Central and Eastern Europe, population projections for numbers of affected people were estimated using Eurostat population estimates for European high-income countries in 2000 and 2010. RESULTS: The age-standardized prevalence of nonrefractive visual impairment in people 55 years of age or older decreased from 2.22% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.34-3.10) from 1991 through 2006 to 0.92% (95% CI, 0.42-1.42) from 2007 through 2012. It strongly increased with age in both periods (up to 15.69% and 4.39% in participants 85 years of age or older from 1991 through 2006 and from 2007 through 2012, respectively). Age-standardized prevalence of visual impairment tended to be higher in women than men from 1991 through 2006 (2.67% vs. 1.88%), but not from 2007 through 2012 (0.87% vs. 0.88%). No differences were observed between northern, western, and southern regions of Europe. The projected numbers of affected older inhabitants in European high-income countries decreased from 2.5 million affected individuals in 2000 to 1.2 million in 2010. Of those, 584 000 were blind in 2000, in comparison with 170 000 who were blind in 2010. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the increase in the European older population, our study indicated that the number of visually impaired people has decreased in European high-income countries in the last 20 years. This may be the result of major improvements in eye care and prevention, the decreasing prevalence of eye diseases, or both.

PURPOSE: To investigate whether myopia is becoming more common across Europe and explore whether increasing education levels, an important environmental risk factor for myopia, might explain any temporal trend. DESIGN: Meta-analysis of population-based, cross-sectional studies from the European Eye Epidemiology (E(3)) Consortium. PARTICIPANTS: The E(3) Consortium is a collaborative network of epidemiological studies of common eye diseases in adults across Europe. Refractive data were available for 61 946 participants from 15 population-based studies performed between 1990 and 2013; participants had a range of median ages from 44 to 78 years. METHODS: Noncycloplegic refraction, year of birth, and highest educational level achieved were obtained for all participants. Myopia was defined as a mean spherical equivalent ≤-0.75 diopters. A random-effects meta-analysis of age-specific myopia prevalence was performed, with sequential analyses stratified by year of birth and highest level of educational attainment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Variation in age-specific myopia prevalence for differing years of birth and educational level. RESULTS: There was a significant cohort effect for increasing myopia prevalence across more recent birth decades; age-standardized myopia prevalence increased from 17.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 17.6-18.1) to 23.5% (95% CI, 23.2-23.7) in those born between 1910 and 1939 compared with 1940 and 1979 (P = 0.03). Education was significantly associated with myopia; for those completing primary, secondary, and higher education, the age-standardized prevalences were 25.4% (CI, 25.0-25.8), 29.1% (CI, 28.8-29.5), and 36.6% (CI, 36.1-37.2), respectively. Although more recent birth cohorts were more educated, this did not fully explain the cohort effect. Compared with the reference risk of participants born in the 1920s with only primary education, higher education or being born in the 1960s doubled the myopia prevalence ratio-2.43 (CI, 1.26-4.17) and 2.62 (CI, 1.31-5.00), respectively-whereas individuals born in the 1960s and completing higher education had approximately 4 times the reference risk: a prevalence ratio of 3.76 (CI, 2.21-6.57). CONCLUSIONS: Myopia is becoming more common in Europe; although education levels have increased and are associated with myopia, higher education seems to be an additive rather than explanatory factor. Increasing levels of myopia carry significant clinical and economic implications, with more people at risk of the sight-threatening complications associated with high myopia.