Kandel Himal, Khadka Jyoti, Goggin Michael, Pesudovs Konrad
NHMRC Centre for Clinical Eye Research, Flinders University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
University of Adelaide/South Australian Institute of Ophthalmology, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia *
Optom Vis Sci. 2017 Dec;94(12):1102-1119. doi: 10.1097/OPX.0000000000001143.
This review has identified the best existing patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments in refractive error. The article highlights the limitations of the existing instruments and discusses the way forward.
A systematic review was conducted to identify the types of PROs used in refractive error, to determine the quality of the existing PRO instruments in terms of their psychometric properties, and to determine the limitations in the content of the existing PRO instruments.
Articles describing a PRO instrument measuring 1 or more domains of quality of life in people with refractive error were identified by electronic searches on the MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases. The information on content development, psychometric properties, validity, reliability, and responsiveness of those PRO instruments was extracted from the selected articles. The analysis was done based on a comprehensive set of assessment criteria.
One hundred forty-eight articles describing 47 PRO instruments in refractive error were included in the review. Most of the articles (99 [66.9%]) used refractive error-specific PRO instruments. The PRO instruments comprised 19 refractive, 12 vision but nonrefractive, and 16 generic PRO instruments. Only 17 PRO instruments were validated in refractive error populations; six of them were developed using Rasch analysis. None of the PRO instruments has items across all domains of quality of life. The Quality of Life Impact of Refractive Correction, the Quality of Vision, and the Contact Lens Impact on Quality of Life have comparatively better quality with some limitations, compared with the other PRO instruments.
This review describes the PRO instruments and informs the choice of an appropriate measure in refractive error. We identified need of a comprehensive and scientifically robust refractive error-specific PRO instrument. Item banking and computer-adaptive testing system can be the way to provide such an instrument.
本综述确定了屈光不正领域现有的最佳患者报告结局（PRO）工具。本文强调了现有工具的局限性，并探讨了未来的发展方向。
进行一项系统综述，以确定屈光不正领域使用的PRO类型，根据其心理测量特性确定现有PRO工具的质量，并确定现有PRO工具在内容方面的局限性。
通过对MEDLINE、PubMed、Scopus、Web of Science和Cochrane数据库进行电子检索，识别描述测量屈光不正患者生活质量1个或多个领域的PRO工具的文章。从所选文章中提取有关这些PRO工具的内容开发、心理测量特性、有效性、可靠性和反应性的信息。分析基于一套全面的评估标准进行。
本综述纳入了148篇描述47种屈光不正PRO工具的文章。大多数文章（99篇[66.9%]）使用了屈光不正特异性PRO工具。这些PRO工具包括19种屈光相关、12种视力但非屈光相关和16种通用PRO工具。只有17种PRO工具在屈光不正人群中得到验证；其中6种是使用Rasch分析开发的。没有一种PRO工具涵盖生活质量的所有领域。与其他PRO工具相比，屈光矫正对生活质量的影响、视力质量和隐形眼镜对生活质量的影响在存在一些局限性的情况下质量相对较好。
本综述描述了PRO工具，并为屈光不正领域选择合适的测量方法提供了参考。我们确定需要一种全面且科学可靠的屈光不正特异性PRO工具。项目库和计算机自适应测试系统可能是提供此类工具的途径。
