Kumaran Sheela E, Khadka Jyoti, Baker Rod, Pesudovs Konrad
Discipline of Optometry and Vision Science, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Clin Exp Optom. 2018 Jul;101(4):460-484. doi: 10.1111/cxo.12553. Epub 2017 Jun 21.
Many patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have been developed and/or used to measure the impact of amblyopia and strabismus on quality of life (QoL). Identifying the one with superior quality is important for evaluating the effectiveness of novel therapy for amblyopia and for directing improved clinical decision-making in adults considering strabismic surgery. Therefore, the aim of this review is to identify all PROMs previously developed/used to study the impact of amblyopia and/or strabismus on QoL and to appraise the quality and comprehensiveness of content of the disease-specific instruments.
A systematic search was carried out in the electronic databases of PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science and PsycINFO. The quality of content and measurement properties of all the disease-specific instruments were assessed using established quality standards. Further, the content of the instruments were examined for comprehensiveness by categorising each item across the eight ophthalmic QoL domains (activity limitation, concerns, emotional well-being, social well-being, economic, convenience, symptoms and mobility).
Seventy-one PROMs were identified, out of which 32 were amblyopia- and/or strabismus-specific. Out of all the disease-specific instruments, just four have been subjected to modern psychometric tests and only the adult strabismus questionnaire (AS-20) demonstrated good measurement properties. Most of the amblyopia-specific instruments measured the impact of the treatment of amblyopia on children, while most of the strabismus-specific instruments measured concerns related to appearance and treatment outcome in adults. All instruments have gaps in their content and failed to address QoL comprehensively.
All the existing amblyopia- and/or strabismus-specific instruments fall short of desired quality and/or comprehensiveness of content. The review identifies the need for developing an instrument with superior quality and discusses potential directions of future research.
已经开发和/或使用了许多患者报告结局测量指标(PROMs)来衡量弱视和斜视对生活质量(QoL)的影响。确定质量 superior 的指标对于评估弱视新疗法的有效性以及指导考虑斜视手术的成年人做出更好的临床决策非常重要。因此,本综述的目的是识别所有先前开发/用于研究弱视和/或斜视对生活质量影响的 PROMs,并评估疾病特异性工具内容的质量和全面性。
在PubMed、Cochrane、科学引文索引和PsycINFO电子数据库中进行了系统检索。使用既定的质量标准评估所有疾病特异性工具的内容质量和测量特性。此外,通过将每个项目归类到八个眼科生活质量领域(活动受限、担忧、情绪健康、社会健康、经济、便利性、症状和活动能力)来检查工具内容的全面性。
共识别出71个PROMs,其中32个是针对弱视和/或斜视的。在所有疾病特异性工具中,只有四个经过了现代心理测量测试,只有成人斜视问卷(AS-20)显示出良好的测量特性。大多数弱视特异性工具测量了弱视治疗对儿童的影响,而大多数斜视特异性工具测量了成年人对外表和治疗结果的担忧。所有工具在内容上都存在差距,未能全面解决生活质量问题。
所有现有的弱视和/或斜视特异性工具都达不到所需的质量和/或内容全面性。该综述指出需要开发一种质量 superior 的工具,并讨论了未来研究的潜在方向。