Development and Evaluation of a Framework for Identifying and Addressing Spin for Harms in Systematic Reviews of Interventions.

"Spin" refers to misleading reporting, interpretation, and extrapolation of findings in primary and secondary research (such as in systematic reviews). The study of spin primarily focuses on beneficial outcomes. The objectives of this research were threefold: first, to develop a framework for identifying spin associated with harms in systematic reviews of interventions; second, to apply the framework to a set of reviews, thereby pinpointing instances where spin may be present; and finally, to revise the spin examples, offering guidance on how spin can be rectified.The authors developed their framework through an iterative process that engaged an international group of researchers specializing in spin and reporting bias. The framework comprises 12 specific types of spin for harms, grouped by 7 categories across the 3 domains (reporting, interpretation, and extrapolation). The authors subsequently gathered instances of spin from a random sample of 100 systematic reviews of interventions. Of the 58 reviews that assessed harm and the 42 that did not, they found that 28 (48%) and 6 (14%), respectively, had at least 1 of the 12 types of spin for harms. Inappropriate extrapolation of the results and conclusions for harms to populations, interventions, outcomes, or settings not assessed in a review was the most common category of spin in 17 of 100 reviews.The authors revised the examples to remove spin, taking into consideration the context (for example, medical discipline, source population), findings for harms, and methodological limitations of the original reviews. They provide guidance for authors, peer reviewers, and editors in recognizing and rectifying or (preferably) avoiding spin, ultimately enhancing the clarity and accuracy of harms reporting in systematic review publications.

Prevalence of dry eye and Meibomian gland dysfunction in Central and South America: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Dry eye is one of the most common ophthalmic conditions and can significantly impact quality of life. Meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD) is a major cause of evaporative dry eye. We sought to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the prevalence and incidence of dry eye and MGD in Central and South America and to identify factors associated with disease burden. METHODS: Data sources Ovid MEDLINE and Embase. STUDY SELECTION: A search conducted on August 16, 2021, identified studies published between January 1, 2010, and August 16, 2021, with no restrictions regarding participant age or language of publication. Case reports, case series, case-control studies, and interventional studies were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: The review was based on a protocol registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021256934). Risk of bias was assessed in duplicate using a risk of bias tool designed for the purposes of descriptive epidemiological studies. Data were extracted by one investigator and verified by another for accuracy. Prevalence of dry eye and MGD were grouped based on study participant characteristics. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Prevalence and incidence of dry eye and MGD in Central and South America. Summary estimates from meta-analysis with 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: Fourteen studies (11,594 total participants) were included. The population prevalence of dry eye was 13% (95% CI, 12%-14%) in Brazil and 41% (95% CI, 39%-44%) in Mexico based on one study each. Meta-analyses suggested that dry eye prevalence was 70% among indoor workers (95% CI, 56%-80%; I2, 82%; 3 studies), 71% among students (95% CI, 65%-77%; I2, 92%; 3 studies), and 83% in general ophthalmology clinics (95% CI, 77%-88%; I2, 88%; 2 studies). MGD prevalence ranged from 23% among indoor workers (95% CI, 16%-31%; 1 study) to 68% in general ophthalmology clinics (95% CI, 62%-72%; 1 study). No studies reported incidence of dry eye or MGD. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated considerable variation in the published prevalence of dry eye and MGD among the general population and subpopulations in Central and South America. Local and subpopulation estimates of dry eye disease burden may be valuable to assist needs assessments and implementation of measures to mitigate the condition.

Patient barriers and facilitators for making environmental and behavioral modifications for dry eye in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Managing dry eye disease (DED) is expensive. Often, prescribed treatments improve clinical signs but not patient-reported symptoms. In large surveys, clinicians and patients ranked environmental and behavioral modifications among the most important DED-related research priorities. Our purpose was to investigate the barriers to and facilitators of use of these modifications by patients with DED in the United States and how their use may be impacted by socioeconomic status (SES). METHODS: Using Qualtrics, we conducted an anonymous online survey of adults with DED living in the United States in August to September 2022. Patients were identified through the Dry Eye Foundation, Sjögren's Foundation, and a DED clinic in Colorado. We used an established index for classifying respondent SES based on education, household income, and employment. Outcomes included use of environmental and behavioral modifications and barriers to and facilitators of their use. RESULTS: We included 754 respondents (SES: 382 low, 275 high, and 97 unclear). Most were aged 18 to 49 years (67%), female (68%), and White (76%) and reported dealing with DED for ≤5 years (67%). The most frequent modifications were taking breaks to rest eyes (68%), increasing water intake (68%), and using hot/cold compresses (52%). For these three, the biggest facilitators were as follows: belief that the modification works (27 to 37%), being recommended it (24 to 26%), and ease of use/performance (21 to 32%). Across modifications, the biggest barriers were difficulty of use (55%), lack of family/employer/social/community support (33%), and lack of awareness (32%). The data do not suggest discernible patterns of differences in barriers or facilitators by SES. CONCLUSIONS: Greater emphasis should be placed on explaining to patients how environmental and behavioral modifications might mitigate DED. Employers and members of patients' support systems should be guided regarding how best to support patients in managing DED symptoms.

Studying harms of interventions with an equity lens in randomized trials.

Equity and health equity are fundamental pillars in fostering a just and inclusive society. While equity underscores fairness in resource allocation and opportunity, health equity aims to eradicate avoidable health disparities among social groups. The concept of harms in interventions-undesirable consequences associated with the use of interventions-often varies across populations due to biological and social factors, necessitating a nuanced understanding. An equity lens reveals disparities in harm distribution, urging researchers and policymakers to address these differences in their decision-making processes. Furthermore, interventions, even well-intentioned ones, can inadvertently exacerbate disparities, emphasizing the need for comprehensive harm assessment. Integrating equity considerations in research practices and trial methodologies, through study design or through practices such as inclusive participant recruitment, is pivotal in advancing health equity. By prioritizing interventions that address disparities and ensuring inclusivity in research, we can foster a more equitable healthcare system.

Interventions for Dry Eye: An Overview of Systematic Reviews.

Importance: Dry eye is a common ocular disease that can have substantial morbidity. Systematic reviews provide evidence for dry eye interventions and can be useful for patients, clinicians, and clinical guideline developers. Overviews of reviews use explicit and systematic methods to synthesize findings from multiple systematic reviews, but currently, there are no overviews of systematic reviews investigating interventions for dry eye. Objective: To summarize the results of reliable systematic reviews of dry eye interventions and to highlight the evidence gaps identified. Evidence Review: We searched the Cochrane Eyes and Vision US satellite database and included reliable systematic reviews evaluating dry eye interventions published from 2016 to 2022. We reported the proportion of systematic reviews that were reliable with reasons for unreliability. Critical and important outcomes from reliable systematic reviews were extracted and verified. Critical outcomes included dry eye-related patient-reported outcome measures. Results were synthesized from reliable systematic reviews to provide summaries of evidence for each intervention. Evidence for each intervention was defined as conclusive or inconclusive depending on whether high-certainty evidence across systematic reviews was available according to Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) criteria and whether findings reached statistical or clinical significance. Recommendations were made for further research. Findings: Within the Cochrane Eyes and Vision US satellite database, 138 potentially relevant systematic reviews were identified, 71 were considered eligible, and 26 (37%) were assessed as reliable. Among reliable systematic reviews, no conclusive evidence was identified for any dry eye intervention. Inconclusive evidence suggested that environmental modifications, dietary modifications, artificial tears and lubricants, punctal occlusion, intense pulsed light therapy, vectored thermal pulsation therapy (Lipiflow), topical corticosteroids, topical cyclosporine A, topical secretagogues, and autologous serum may be effective. Only unreliable systematic reviews evaluated lifitegrast, oral antibiotics, and moisture chamber devices. Conclusions and Relevance: This overview of systematic reviews found some evidence that dry eye interventions may be effective, but no conclusive evidence was available. The conduct and reporting of most systematic reviews for dry eye interventions warrant improvement, and reliable systematic reviews are needed to evaluate lifitegrast, oral antibiotics, and moisture chamber devices.

Social Determinants of Dry Eye in the United States: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: To conduct a systematic review to summarize current evidence on associations between social determinants of health (SDOH) indicators and dry eye in the United States. DESIGN: Systematic review. METHODS: We followed a protocol registered on Open Science Framework to include studies that examined associations between SDOH indicators and dry eye. We mapped SDOH indicators to 1 of the 5 domains following the Healthy People 2030 framework and categorized dry eye measures into "dry eye diagnosis and care," "dry eye symptoms," or "ocular surface parameters." We summarized the direction of association between SDOH indicators and dry eye as worsening, beneficial, or null. We used items from the Newcastle Ottawa Scale to assess risk of bias. RESULTS: Eighteen studies reporting 51 SDOH indicators, mostly mapped to the neighborhood and built environment domain, were included. Thirteen studies were judged at high risk of bias. Fifteen of 19 (79%) associations revealed an increase in the diagnosis of dry eye or delayed specialty care for it. Thirty-four of 56 (61%) associations unveiled exacerbated dry eye symptoms. Fifteen of 23 (65%) found null associations with corneal fluorescein staining. Ten of 22 (45%) associations revealed an increased tear break up time (45%) whereas another 10 (45%) showed null associations. CONCLUSIONS: Most SDOH indicators studied were associated with unfavorable dry eye measures, such as a higher disease burden, worse symptoms, or delayed referral, in the United States. Future investigations between SDOH and dry eye should use standardized instruments and address the domains in which there is an evidence gap.