Global multi-site, prospective analysis of cataract surgery outcomes following ICHOM standards: the European CAT-Community.
Cataract surgery
Catquest-9SF
Clinician-reported outcome measures (CROMs)
ICHOM
Patient-reported outcomes (PROMs)
Journal
Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie
ISSN: 1435-702X
Titre abrégé: Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8205248
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jul 2021
Jul 2021
Historique:
received:
20
11
2020
accepted:
01
04
2021
revised:
25
03
2021
pubmed:
16
4
2021
medline:
19
8
2021
entrez:
15
4
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To evaluate in a large sample of patients from 10 different European centers the results of cataract surgery, characterizing the relationship between patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) and clinician-reported outcome measures (CROMs). Prospective non-interventional multicenter observational descriptive study analyzing the clinical outcomes of a total of 3799 cases undergoing cataract surgery (mean age: 72.7 years). In all cases, the cataract surgery standard developed by the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurements (ICHOM) was used to register the clinical data. Three-month postoperative visual acuity and refraction data were considered CROMs, whereas Rasch-calibrated item 2 (RCCQ2) and total Catquest-9SF score (CQ) were considered PROMs. Postoperative corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) was 0.3 logMAR or better in 88.7% (2505/2823) of eyes. Mean differences between preoperative and postoperative RCCQ2 and CQ scores were -3.09 and -2.39, respectively. Visual function improvement with surgery was reported by 91.5% (2163/2364) of patients. Statistically significant, although weak, correlations of postoperative CDVA with postoperative refraction, PROMs, and complications were found (0.133 ≤ r ≤0.289, p < 0.001). A predictive model (R Cataract surgery provides an improved functional vision in most of patients although this improvement can be limited by ocular comorbidities and complications. The relationship between PROMs and CROMs is multifactorial and complex.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33855602
doi: 10.1007/s00417-021-05181-5
pii: 10.1007/s00417-021-05181-5
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Observational Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1897-1905Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.
Références
Refolo P, Minacori R, Mele V, Sacchini D, Spagnolo AG (2012) Patient reported outcomes (PROs): the significance of using humanistic measures in clinical trial and clinical practice. Eur Rev Med PharmacolSci 16:1319Y23
Staniszewska S, Haywood KL, Brett J, Tutton L (2012) Patient and public involvement in patient-reported outcome measures: evolution not revolution. Patient 5:79–87
doi: 10.2165/11597150-000000000-00000
Lundstrom M, Pesudovs K (2009) Catquest-9SF patient outcomes questionnaire: nine-item short-form Rasch-scaled revision of the Catquest questionnaire. J Cataract Refract Surg 35:504–13
doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2008.11.038
Lundstrom M, Stenevi U (2013) Analyzing patient-reported outcomes to improve cataract care. Optom Vis Sci 90:754–9
doi: 10.1097/OPX.0b013e3182956c32
McNamara RL, Spatz ES, Kelley TA, Stowell CJ, Beltrame J, Heidenreich P, Tresserras R, Jernberg T, Chua T, Morgan L, Panigrahi B, Rosas Ruiz A, Rumsfeld JS, Sadwin JS, Schoeberl M, Shahian D, Weston C, Yeh R, Lewin J (2015) Standardized outcome measurement for patients with coronary artery disease: consensus from the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM). J Am Heart Assoc 4(5):e001767
Bell D, Kelley T, Hicks N (2015) How true outcomes-based commissioning can really ‘liberate’ healthcare services. Future Hosp J 2:147–149
doi: 10.7861/futurehosp.2-2-147
Michelotti M, de Korne DF, Weizer JS, Lee PP, Flanagan D, Kelly SP, Odergren A, Sandhu SS, Wai C, Klazinga N, Haripriya A, Stein JD, Hingorani M (2017) Mapping standard ophthalmic outcome sets to metrics currently reported in eight eye hospitals. BMC Ophthalmol 17:269
doi: 10.1186/s12886-017-0667-0
Mahmud I, Kelly T, Stowell C, Haripriya A, Boman A, Kossler I, Morlet N, Pershing S, Pesudovs K, Goh PP, Sparrow JM, Lundström M (2015) A proposed minimum standard set of outcomes measures for cataract surgery. JAMA Ophthalmol 133:1247–1252
doi: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2015.2810
Yan W, Wang W, van Wijngaarden P, Mueller A, He M (2019) Longitudinal changes in global cataract surgery rate inequality and associations with socioeconomic indices. ClinExpOphthalmol 47:453–460
ICHOM Cataracts Data Collection Reference Guide version 2.0.1. Revised: March 8th, 2017. Accessed via http://www.ichom.org on 14 April 2021
McAlinden C, Gothwal VK, Khadka J, Wright TA, Lamoureux EL, Pesudovs K (2011) A head-to-head comparison of 16 cataract surgery outcome questionnaires. Ophthalmology 118:2374–81
doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2011.06.008
Davidorf JM (2015) Femtosecond versus (gold) standard phacoemulsification. J Cataract Refract Surg 41:1124
doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2015.03.014
Lotfipour M, Rolius R, Lehman EB, Pantanelli SM, Scott IU (2017) Trends in cataract surgery training curricula. J Cataract Refract Surg 43:49–53
doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2016.10.020
Thanigasalam T, Reddy SC, Zaki RA (2015) Factors associated with complications and postoperative visual outcomes of cataract surgery; a study of 1,632 cases. J Ophthalmic Vis Res 10:375–84
doi: 10.4103/2008-322X.158892
Lundström M, Barry P, Henry Y, Rosen P, Stenevi U (2013) Visual outcome of cataract surgery; study from the European Registry of Quality Outcomes for Cataract and Refractive Surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg 39:673–9
doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2012.11.026
Chaudhary V, Popovic M, Holmes J, Robinson T, Mak M, Mohammad Mohaghegh PS, Eino D, Mann K, Kobetz L, Gusenbauer K, Barbosa J (2016) Predictors of functional vision changes after cataract surgery: the PROVISION study. Can J Ophthalmol 51:265–270
doi: 10.1016/j.jcjo.2016.02.010
Fung SS, Luis J, Hussain B, Bunce C, Hingorani M, Hancox J (2016) Patient-reported outcome measuring tools in cataract surgery: clinical comparison at a tertiary hospital. J Cataract Refract Surg 42:1759–1767
doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2016.08.037
Grimfors M, Mollazadegan K, Lundström M, Kugelberg M (2014) Ocular comorbidity and self-assessed visual function after cataract surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg 40:1163–9
doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2013.11.033
Harrer A, Gerstmeyer K, Hirnschall N, Pesudovs K, Lundström M, Findl O (2013) Impact of bilateral cataract surgery on vision-related activity limitations. J Cataract Refract Surg 39:680–5
doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2012.11.028
Helbostad JL, Oedegaard M, Lamb SE, Delbaere K, Lord SR, Sletvold O (2013) Change in vision, visual disability, and health after cataract surgery. Optom Vis Sci 90:392–9
doi: 10.1097/OPX.0b013e3182843f16
Lundström M, Llovet F, Llovet A, Martinez del Pozo M, Mompean B, González JV, Pesudovs K (2016) Validation of the Spanish Catquest-9SF in patients with a monofocal or trifocal intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg 42:1791–1796
doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2016.10.011
Mollazadegan K, Lundström M (2015) A study of the correlation between patient-reported outcomes and clinical outcomes after cataract surgery in ophthalmic clinics. ActaOphthalmol 93:293–8
Stolk-Vos AC, Visser MS, Klijn S, Timman R, Lansink P, Nuijts R, Tjia K, Zijlmans B, Kranenburg LW, Busschbach JV, Reus NJ (2018) Effects of clinical parameters on patient-reported outcome in cataract patients: a multicentre study. ActaOphthalmol 96:586–591
Grimfors M, Lundström M, Höijer J, Kugelberg M (2018) Intraoperative difficulties, complications and self-assessed visual function in cataract surgery. ActaOphthalmol 96:592–599
Rönbeck M, Lundström M, Kugelberg M (2011) Study of possible predictors associated with self-assessed visual function after cataract surgery. Ophthalmology 118:1732–8
doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2011.04.013
Nderitu P, Ursell P (2019) Factors affecting cataract surgery operating time among trainees and consultants. J Cataract Refract Surg 45:816–822
doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2019.01.002