LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Black, N.; Browne, J.; van der Meulen, J.H.; Jamison, L.; Copley, L.P.; Lewsey, J. (2009)
Publisher: BMJ Publishing Group
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: RD, RE, RA
Objectives: Following a 3.7-fold increase in the rate of cataract surgery in the UK between 1989 and 2004, concern has been raised as to whether this has been accompanied by an excessive decline in the threshold such that some operations are inappropriate. The objective was to measure the impact of surgery on a representative sample of patients so as to determine whether or not overutilisation of surgery is occurring.\ud \ud Design: Prospective cohort assessed before and 3 months after surgery.\ud \ud Setting: Ten providers (four NHS hospitals, three NHS treatment centres, three independent sector treatment centres) from across England.\ud \ud Participants: 861 patients undergoing first eye (569) or second eye (292) cataract surgery provided preoperative data of whom 745 (87%) completed postoperative questionnaires.\ud \ud Main outcome measures: Patient-reported visual function (VF-14); general health status and quality of life (EQ5D); postoperative complications; overall view of the operation and its impact.\ud \ud Results: Overall, visual function improved (mean VF-14 score increased from 83.2 (SD 17.3) to 93.7 (SD 13.2)). Self-reported general health status deteriorated (20.3% fair or poor before surgery compared with 25% afterwards) which was reflected in the mean EQ5D score (0.82 vs 0.79; p = 0.003). At least one complication was reported by 66 (8.9%) patients, though this probably overestimated the true incidence. If the appropriateness of surgery is based on an increase in VF-14 score of 5.5 (that corresponds to patients’ reporting being "a little better"), 30% of operations would be deemed inappropriate. If an increase of 12.2 (patients’ reports of being "much better") is adopted, the proportion inappropriate is 49%. Using a different approach to determining a minimally important difference, the proportion inappropriate would be closer to 20%. Although visual function (VF-14) scores were unchanged or deteriorated in 25% of patients, 93.1% rated the results of the operation as "good," "very good" or "excellent," and 93.5% felt their eye problem was "better." This partly reflects inadequacies in the validity of the VF-14.\ud \ud Conclusions: Improvement in the provision of cataract surgery has been accompanied by a reduction in the visual function threshold. However, methodological difficulties in measuring the impact of cataract surgery on visual function and quality of life mean it is impossible to determine whether or not overutilisation of cataract surgery is occurring.\ud \ud N Black1, J Browne1, J van der Meulen1, L Jamieson2, L Copley2 and J Lewsey3
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 1. Naeim A, Keeler EB, Gutierrez PR, et al. Is cataract surgery cost-effective among older patients with a low predicted probability for improvement in reported visual functioning? Med Care 2006;44:982-9.
    • 2. Keenan T, Rosen P, Yeates D, et al. Time trends and geographical variation in cataract surgery rates in England: study of surgical workload. Br J Ophthalmol 2007;91:901-4.
    • 3. NHS Executive. Action on cataracts: good practice guidance. London: Department of Health, 2000.
    • 4. Wood CM. Surgery for cataract [editorial]. BMJ 2007;334:107.
    • 5. NHS Executive. Growing capacity: independent sector diagnosis and treatment centres. London: Department of Health, 2002.
    • 6. Wright CJ, Chambers GK, Robens-Paradise Y. Evaluation of indications for and outcomes of elective surgery. CMAJ 2002;167:461-6.
    • 7. Royal College of Ophthalmologists. Cataract surgery guidelines. London: RCOphth, 2004. http://rcophth.ac.uk/docs/publications/CataractSurgeryGuidelinesMarch 8. Steinberg EP, Tielsch JM, Stein OD, et al. The VF-14: An index of functional impairment in patients with cataract. Arch Ophthalmol 1994;112:630-38.
    • 9. Norregaard JC, Bernth-Petersen P, Alonso J, et al. Variation in indications for cataract surgery in the United States, Denmark, Canada, and Spain: results from the International Cataract Surgery Outcomes Study. Br J Ophthalmol 1998;82:1107-11.
    • 10. Espallargues M, Alonso J. Effectiveness of cataract surgery in Barcelona, Spain. J Clin Epidemiol 1998;51:843-52.
    • 11. Desai P. The outcomes of cataract surgery: the relationships between visual acuity, visual function and quality of life. PhD thesis. University of London, 1996.
    • 12. Tey A, Grant B, Harbison D, et al. Redesign and modernisation of an NHS cataract service (Fife 1997-2004): multifaceted approach. BMJ;334:149-53.
    • 13. Lundquvist B, Monestam E. Longitudinal changes in subjective and objective visual function five years after cataract surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg 2006;32:1944-50.
    • 14. Valderas JM, Rue M, Guyatt G, et al. The impact of the VF-14 index, a perceived visual function measure, in the routine management of cataract patients. Qual Life Res 2005;14:1743-53.
    • 15. Pager CK. Assessment of visual satisfaction and function after cataract surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg 2004;30:2510-16.
    • 16. Kelly SP, Billington B. Cataract surgery in England [letter]. http://bjo.bmj.com/cgi/ eletters/91/7/901#1844 (accessed 18 Oct 2008).
    • 17. Browne J, Jamieson L, Lewsey J, et al. Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in elective surgery: report to the Department of Health. http://www.lshtm. ac.uk/hsru/research/PROMs-Report-12-Dec-07.pdf (accessed 18 Oct 2008).
    • C l i n i c a l s c i e n c e 18.
    • Bayliss EA, Ellis JL, Steiner JF. Subjective assessments of comorbidity correlate with quality of life health outcomes: Initial validation of a comorbidity assessment instrument. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2005;3:51-8.
    • Dolan P. Modelling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care 1997;35:1095-108.
    • Black NA, Sanderson CFB. Day surgery-development of a questionnaire for eliciting patients' experiences. Qual Health Care 1993;2:157-61.
    • Oldham PD. A note on the analysis of repeated measurements on the same subjects. J Chronic Dis 1962;15:969-77.
    • Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Tials 1989;10:407-15.
    • Desai P, Reidy A, Minassian DC, et al. Gains from cataract surgery: visual function and quality of life. Br J Ophthalmol 1996;80:868-73.
    • Black NA, Sanderson CFB, Freeland AP, et al. A randomised controlled trial of surgery for glue ear. BMJ 1990;300:1551-6.
    • Flood AB, Lorence DP, Ding J, et al. The role of expectations in patients' reports of post-operative outcomes and improvement following therapy. Med Care 1993;31:1043-56.
    • Black NA, Griffiths JM, Pope C, et al. Impact of surgery for stress incontinence on morbidity: cohort study. BMJ 1997;315:1493-8.
    • Casard SD, Patrick DL, Damiano AM, et al. Reproducibility and responsiveness of the VF14. Arch Ophthalmol 1995;113:1508-13.
    • Alonso J, Espallargues M, Andersen TF, et al. International applicability of the VF14: an index of visual function in patients with cataracts. Ophthalmology 1997;104:799- 807.
    • Lee JE, Fos PJ, Zuniga MA, et al. Assessing health-related quality of life in cataract patients: the relationship between utility and health-related quality of life measurement. Qual Life Res 2000;9:1127-35.
    • Bellan L. Why are patients with no visual symptoms on cataract waiting lists? Can J Ophthalmol 2005;40:433-8.
    • Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2008;49:1-6.
    • de Boer MR, Moll AC, de Vet HC, et al. Psychometric properties of vision-related quality of life questionnaires: a systematic review. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2004;24:257-73.
    • Department of Health. The NHS in England: the operating framework for 2008/9.
    • http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/ PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_081094 (accessed 18 Oct 2008).
    • Sparrow JM. Cataract surgical rates: is there overprovision in certain areas? Br J Ophthalmol 2007;91:852-3.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article