Setting priorities for comparative effectiveness research: a case study using primary open-angle glaucoma.
OBJECTIVE
To test the feasibility of a framework for prioritizing new comparative effectiveness research (CER) questions related to management of primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) using practice guidelines and a survey of clinicians.


METHODS
Cross-sectional survey.


METHODS
Members of the American Glaucoma Society (AGS).


METHODS
We restated as an answerable clinical question each recommendation in the 2005 American Academy of Ophthalmology Preferred Practice Patterns (PPPs) regarding the management of POAG. We asked members of the AGS to rank the importance of each clinical question, on a scale of 0 (not important at all) to 10 (very important), using a 2-round Delphi survey conducted online between April and September 2008. Respondents had the option of selecting "no judgment" or "research has already answered this question" to each question in lieu of the 0 to 10 rating. We used the ratings assigned by the Delphi respondents to determine the importance of each clinical question.


METHODS
Ranking of importance of each clinical question.


RESULTS
We derived 45 clinical questions from the POAG PPPs. Of the 620 AGS members invited to participate in the survey, 169 completed the Round 1 survey; 105 of 169 also completed Round 2. We observed 4 response patterns to the individual questions. Nine clinical questions were ranked as the most important: 4 questions on medical intervention, 4 questions on filtering surgery, and 1 question on adjustment of therapy.


CONCLUSIONS
Our theoretical model for priority setting for CER questions is a feasible and pragmatic approach that merits testing in other medical settings.
Li
Tianjing
T
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland 21205, USA. tli@jhsph.edu
Ervin
Ann-Margret
AM
Scherer
Roberta
R
Jampel
Henry
H
Dickersin
Kay
K
D035843:Biomedical Research / Q000592:standards; D057186:Comparative Effectiveness Research; D003430:Cross-Sectional Studies; D003697:Delphi Technique; D005240:Feasibility Studies; D005902:Glaucoma, Open-Angle / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000628:therapy*; D006292:Health Priorities; D006306:Health Surveys; D006801:Humans; D008962:Models, Theoretical; D009885:Ophthalmology / Q000592:standards; D017410:Practice Guidelines as Topic; D010818:Practice Patterns, Physicians'; D011787:Quality of Health Care / Q000592:standards; D012955:Societies, Medical / Q000592:standards; D014481:United States
Annu Rev Public Health. 1996;17:511-38
8724238
N Engl J Med. 2009 Jul 23;361(4):325-8
19567828
Br J Ophthalmol. 1996 May;80(5):389-93
8695555
Ophthalmology. 2008 Dec;115(12):2125-6
19041472
Ann Intern Med. 2003 Feb 18;138(4):288-98
12585826
Ann Intern Med. 2009 Aug 4;151(3):203-5
19567618
Health Res Policy Syst. 2006 Nov 29;4:14
17134481
Ann Intern Med. 2003 Feb 18;138(4):273-87
12585825
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007 Summer;23(3):310-5
17579932
Ann Intern Med. 1997 Aug 1;127(3):210-6
9245227
Fam Pract. 2003 Oct;20(5):545-51
14507796
Arch Ophthalmol. 2004 Apr;122(4):451-2
15078660
BMJ. 1999 Feb 20;318(7182):527-30
10024268
Arch Ophthalmol. 2004 Apr;122(4):532-8
15078671
J R Soc Med. 2007 Apr;100(4):187-90
17404342
JAMA. 2000 Sep 13;284(10):1290-6
10979117
Br J Ophthalmol. 2006 Mar;90(3):262-7
16488940