Explore the vast range of titles available.

Purpose: Standard automated perimetry (SAP) remains the gold standard functional test in glaucoma, used primarily for evaluating peripheral vision loss. Central contrast sensitivity (CCS) has emerged as a potential early functional marker of glaucomatous damage. This systematic review aimed to describe the different methods used to measure CCS in randomized controlled trials (RCT) involving glaucoma patients. Methods: We searched the MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Epistemonikos, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases on 25 January 2023, and updated the search on 12 February 2025. Eligible studies comprised RCTs that reported CCS as an outcome in patients with glaucoma, suspected glaucoma, or ocular hypertension. No restrictions were placed on age, sex, ethnicity, geography, intervention, or publication year. Abstracts and full texts were screened independently by two reviewers. Descriptive statistics were used. No formal risk of bias assessment was performed, due to the descriptive nature of the review. Results: Of 1066 records screened, 31 studies met the eligibility criteria. The study sample size ranged from 7 to 207 (median: 23), with most studies involving primary open-angle glaucoma. Interventions were diverse, mainly involving topical medications, with timolol being the most frequent. Eleven CCS test methods were identified. Five studies did not report the method used. The CSV-1000 was the most commonly used test, being applied in 11 studies. Conclusions: CCS has been measured using a wide range of methods in glaucoma RCTs, with limited standardization. Most of the included studies were small, variably reported, and conducted over 10 years ago, suggesting a decreasing interest in CCS as an outcome measure in glaucoma RCTs. Funding: This review was funded by Oslo University Hospital and the Research Council of Norway. Registration: This review was registered on the OSF.

Background/aimsTo investigate the landscape to support Europe-wide collaborative real-world data (RWD) collection, exploring whether required resources are available to glaucoma clinicians.MethodsThis cross-sectional study employed a two-phase method, including two consecutive electronic questionnaires. For phase I, a survey was distributed to all European Glaucoma Society members inquiring about use of electronic medical records (EMRs). For phase II, EMR users who expressed their interest in contributing to a European RWD were surveyed regarding EMR data characteristics and technical resources.ResultsPhase I garnered responses from 201 glaucoma specialists, with 68% reporting use of an EMR. Among them, 47% and 65% reported over 90% of coding rates for diagnoses and medications, respectively. Despite the EMR making available report copies for perimetry (27%) and optical coherence tomography (OCT) (37%), automatic data extraction capabilities were limited to only 10% and 8%. 47 participants responded to phase II. Their practices saw an average of 415 glaucoma patients per month. Date of intraocular pressure (IOP) measurement was the most commonly available structured data (67%), followed by visual acuity (59%) and IOP (56%). 46% had access to central computing systems, with 41% reporting past experience in federated learning initiatives and 73% willing contribution. 34% reported involvement in the development of artificial intelligence algorithms.ConclusionThis study highlights a noteworthy EMR use among European glaucoma specialists, with structured data for metrics like IOP, but identifies gaps in data extraction capabilities. Major challenges include EMR heterogeneity, lack of standardised outcomes, healthcare system differences and cost. A combined approach using structured coding, digitised EMR data and semistructured OCT/perimetry data is recommended.

Primary angle-closure glaucoma is a leading cause of irreversible blindness worldwide. In early-stage disease, intraocular pressure is raised without visual loss. Because the crystalline lens has a major mechanistic role, lens extraction might be a useful initial treatment. From Jan 8, 2009, to Dec 28, 2011, we enrolled patients from 30 hospital eye services in five countries. Randomisation was done by a web-based application. Patients were assigned to undergo clear-lens extraction or receive standard care with laser peripheral iridotomy and topical medical treatment. Eligible patients were aged 50 years or older, did not have cataracts, and had newly diagnosed primary angle closure with intraocular pressure 30 mm Hg or greater or primary angle-closure glaucoma. The co-primary endpoints were patient-reported health status, intraocular pressure, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life-year gained 36 months after treatment. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered, number ISRCTN44464607. Of 419 participants enrolled, 155 had primary angle closure and 263 primary angle-closure glaucoma. 208 were assigned to clear-lens extraction and 211 to standard care, of whom 351 (84%) had complete data on health status and 366 (87%) on intraocular pressure. The mean health status score (0·87 [SD 0·12]), assessed with the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions questionnaire, was 0·052 higher (95% CI 0·015–0·088, p=0·005) and mean intraocular pressure (16·6 [SD 3·5] mm Hg) 1·18 mm Hg lower (95% CI –1·99 to –0·38, p=0·004) after clear-lens extraction than after standard care. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £14 284 for initial lens extraction versus standard care. Irreversible loss of vision occurred in one participant who underwent clear-lens extraction and three who received standard care. No patients had serious adverse events. Clear-lens extraction showed greater efficacy and was more cost-effective than laser peripheral iridotomy, and should be considered as an option for first-line treatment. Medical Research Council.

Treatments for open-angle glaucoma aim to prevent vision loss through lowering of intraocular pressure, but to our knowledge no placebo-controlled trials have assessed visual function preservation, and the observation periods of previous (unmasked) trials have typically been at least 5 years. We assessed vision preservation in patients given latanoprost compared with those given placebo. In this randomised, triple-masked, placebo-controlled trial, we enrolled patients with newly diagnosed open-angle glaucoma at ten UK centres (tertiary referral centres, teaching hospitals, and district general hospitals). Eligible patients were randomly allocated (1:1) with a website-generated randomisation schedule, stratified by centre and with a permuted block design, to receive either latanoprost 0·005% (intervention group) or placebo (control group) eye drops. Drops were administered from identical bottles, once a day, to both eyes. The primary outcome was time to visual field deterioration within 24 months. Analyses were done in all individuals with follow-up data. The Data and Safety Monitoring Committee (DSMC) recommended stopping the trial on Jan 6, 2011 (last patient visit July, 2011), after an interim analysis, and suggested a change in primary outcome from the difference in proportions of patients with incident progression between groups to time to visual field deterioration within 24 months. This trial is registered, number ISRCTN96423140. We enrolled 516 individuals between Dec 1, 2006, and March 16, 2010. Baseline mean intraocular pressure was 19·6 mm Hg (SD 4·6) in 258 patients in the latanoprost group and 20·1 mm Hg (4·8) in 258 controls. At 24 months, mean reduction in intraocular pressure was 3·8 mm Hg (4·0) in 231 patients assessed in the latanoprost group and 0·9 mm Hg (3·8) in 230 patients assessed in the placebo group. Visual field preservation was significantly longer in the latanoprost group than in the placebo group: adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0·44 (95% CI 0·28–0·69; p=0·0003). We noted 18 serious adverse events, none attributable to the study drug. This is the first randomised placebo-controlled trial to show preservation of the visual field with an intraocular-pressure-lowering drug in patients with open-angle glaucoma. The study design enabled significant differences in vision to be assessed in a relatively short observation period. Pfizer, UK National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre.

This is an overview of systematic reviews to evaluate the visual outcomes of different presbyopia correcting intraocular lens (IOL), spectacle independence (SI), adverse visual effects and cost-effectiveness. Reviews were included if they compared presbyopia-correcting IOLs—such as multifocal (bifocal and trifocal), extended-depth-of-focus (EDOF), and accommodative and monofocal IOLs. The AMSTAR-2 tool was used. Primary outcomes were uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), intermediate visual acuity (UIVA) and near visual acuity (UNVA). Secondary outcomes were SI, halos and glare, and cost-effectiveness. Prospero registration CRD42023425283. Eight systematic reviews were included. None scored ‘Yes’ in all AMSTAR-2 tool 16 items. Primary outcomes were as follows: all IOLs reported similar UDVA. EDOF and trifocal IOLs reported better UCIVA. Trifocal diffractive, EDOF, accommodative and bifocals were better than monofocal IOL for UNVA and of these trifocal and biofocal reported better UNVA. Secondary outcomes: SI was better with trifocal, bifocals and EDOF compared with monofocal IOLs. Trifocals and bifocals reported more glare and halos. No review reported cost-effectiveness. The findings indicate that while multifocal and EDOF IOLs show comparable performance in UDVA and UIVA, multifocal performs better in UNVA but at the cost of glare and halos. EDOFs may offer superior spectacle independence but may not consistently match multifocal in near vision.

Introduction Systematic 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. Methods We 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. Results In 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. Conclusion A 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.

Background/aimsTo assess baseline ocular parameters in the prediction of long-term intraocular pressure (IOP) control after clear lens extraction (CLE) or laser peripheral iridotomy (LPI) in patients with primary angle closure (PAC) disease using data from the Effectiveness of Early Lens Extraction for the treatment of primary angle-closure glaucoma (EAGLE) tria.MethodsThis study is a secondary analysis of EAGLE data where we define the primary outcome of ‘good responders’ as those with IOP<21 mm Hg without requiring additional surgery and ‘optimal responders’ as those who in addition were medication free, at 36-month follow-up. Primary analysis was conducted using a multivariate logistic regression model to assess how randomised interventions and ocular parameters predict treatment response.ResultsA total of 369 patients (182 in CLE arm and 187 in LPI arm) completed the 36-month follow-up examination. After CLE, 90% met our predefined ‘good response’ criterion compared with 67% in the LPI arm, and 66% met ‘optimal response’ criterion compared with 18% in the LPI arm, with significantly longer drops/surgery-free survival time (p<0.05 for all). Patients randomised to CLE (OR=10.1 (6.1 to 16.8)), Chinese (OR=2.3 (1.3 to 3.9)), and those who had not previously used glaucoma drops (OR=2.8 (1.6 to 4.8)) were more likely to maintain long-term optimal IOP response over 36 months.ConclusionPatients with primary angle closure glaucoma/PAC are 10 times more likely to maintain drop-free good IOP control with initial CLE surgery than LPI. Non-Chinese ethnicity, higher baseline IOP and using glaucoma drops prior to randomisation are predictors of worse long-term IOP response.

Background/objectivesAdults living in more deprived areas are less likely to attend an eye examination, resulting in greater visual impairment from undiagnosed eye disease and a widening of health inequalities. It is unknown if the introduction of free NHS eye examinations and help with spectacle costs has benefited children in Scotland. This study aimed to explore factors associated with accessing NHS spectacles including level of deprivation, refractive error, urbanity and age.Subjects/methodsNHS-financed General Ophthalmic Services (GOS) 3 supplement the cost of spectacles for children under 16 years. Administrative data on the spectacle refraction dispensed were obtained from Information Services Division (ISD) for mainland Scotland, 2018, and categorised by: Emmetropes/low hyperopes (reference group), myopes and moderate/high hyperopes. Data were linked to the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD) quintile.ResultsData included 108, 043 GOS 3 claims. Greater deprivation was associated with greater GOS 3 claims p = 0.041. This was most evident in emmetropic/low hyperopic children and in moderate/high hyperopic children. GOS 3 claims in the myopes group increased with age across all SIMD and decreased with age in the moderate/high hyperope group (all p < 0.001). GOS 3 claims were not associated with urbanity for all Health Boards (p = 0.13).ConclusionsChildren in areas of greater deprivation and in more rural areas are not disadvantaged in accessing NHS spectacles. This did not vary by refractive error group. This suggests that health policy in Scotland is accessible to those from all deprivation levels and refractive errors.

To assess the comparative effectiveness and safety of different surgical and laser techniques in people with pseudoexfoliation glaucoma (PXFG). We conducted a systematic review including randomized controlled trials (RCT) that compared any pair of surgical or laser treatment versus other type of intervention in PXFG. RCT were identified by a highly sensitive search of electronic databases and two individuals independently assessed trial eligibility, abstracted data and assessed risk of bias. We performed Bayesian Meta-Analysis when outcomes were comparable. The search strategy identified 6171 records. Six studies (262 subjects) were included. Two trials analyzed the same pair of surgical interventions comparing phacoemulsification as solo procedure or combined with trabecular aspiration and we performed meta-analysis. Other RCTs compared the following interventions: trabecular aspiration associated with phacoemulsification versus phacotrabeculectomy, non-penetrating deep sclerectomy associated or not with phacoemulsification, selective versus argon laser trabeculoplasty and one-site versus two-site phacotrabeculectomy. For IOP data, none of the trials reported a difference between pairs of surgical techniques, nor changes in visual acuity or number of post-operative medications. The overall risk of bias is moderate to high. There are no apparent differences in efficacy and safety, although with large uncertainty, between surgical or laser techniques for PXFG. Based on the low-quality evidence from the six studies included in this review, it is not possible to justify the preferential use of non-penetrating surgery, MIGS or trabecular aspiration (with or without cataract surgery) in PXFG. Further research is needed to determine the optimal management of this condition.