Adherence of glaucoma intervention studies to World Glaucoma Association guidelines

Résumé fourni par la source

OBJECTIVE: To assess the adherence of glaucoma surgical and laser studies to WGA guidelines for reporting glaucoma surgery studies, analyse trends in adherence over time and explore associations between adherence and study characteristics. METHODS: Systematic review (PROSPERO:CRD42023394477) of glaucoma surgical and laser studies published between 2010 and 2023 in PubMed/MEDLINE and EMBASE. Eligible studies included RCTs, non-randomized comparative and prospective observational designs (>100 eyes). Two reviewers independently extracted data across five domains: Methodology, Definition of success, Ethics, Postoperative complications and Statistical reporting. Temporal trends and associations with study features were analysed using linear regression. RESULTS: Two hundred and fifty-six studies were included, 75% of which were published in Q1-Q3 journals. Mean overall adherence was 47% ± 9.2%. Domain-level adherence was highest in Ethics (61% ± 20%), followed by Postoperative complications (50% ± 22%), Statistical reporting (48% ± 18%), Methodology (44% ± 12%) and Definition of success (30% ± 13%). No significant differences (p > 0.06) were observed in overall adherence for studies from Europe, Asia, Oceania or the Middle East. Studies involving cataract surgery for angle-closure disease (est. = -10% [-19%, -2.2%], p = 0.014) and laser trabeculoplasty (est. = -7.1% [-11%, -3.5%], p < 0.001) had lower adherence compared with trabeculectomy, while MIGS studies showed no difference (p = 0.45). Visual field progression was reported in only 3% of studies, while various anatomical outcomes (e.g. bleb morphology) were reported in 0%-24% of studies. CONCLUSION: Current literature shows poor adherence to WGA guidelines across both traditional and newer glaucoma surgeries, reflecting inadequate reporting and outdated recommendations. Evidence-based updates, broader consensus and stronger implementation are needed to ensure standardized and meaningful reporting.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.