You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 104, Issue 10
  • Outcomes in randomised controlled trials of multifocal lenses in cataract surgery: the case for development of a core outcome set

Responses

Article menu
Clinical science
Outcomes in randomised controlled trials of multifocal lenses in cataract surgery: the case for development of a core outcome set
Free
Compose a Response to This Article
Compose Response

More information about text formats

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on: 24 February 2021
    Should the minimum data set be expanded further?
    • Elizabeth M Law, Optometrist Southend University Hospital, BMI Southend Hospital
    • Other Contributors:
      • Rajesh K Aggarwal, Consultant Ophthalmic Surgeon
      • Phillip Buckhurst, Optometrist
      • Hetal Buckhurst, Optometrist

    We read with interest the recent article by Evans et al regarding outcomes in randomised control trial of multifocal lenses in cataract surgery, and their case for development of a core outcome set.1 We wholeheartedly agree that a set of core outcomes would be hugely beneficial to multifocal intraocular lens (MIOL) studies, as there is such variation in multifocal studies currently. This has been commented on by previous Cochrane reviews2 yet there remains no consensus. Such variability makes meaningful comparison between studies difficult.
    Evans’ suggests that the minimum data collected in MIOL studies should be unaided and corrected distance and near LogMAR acuity and contrast sensitivity. Also, the use of a questionnaire for patient reported outcomes that must include questions relating to spectacle independence and halos/glare.
    Whilst we agree with the above measures, we feel that perhaps such a minimum data set may be insufficient particularly as it fails to address intermediate vision. We would recommend the inclusion of a defocus profile that covers distance, intermediate and near ranges. In addition, a standardised method of defocus measurement3 and analysis.4 This could be used as an adjunct to conventional visual acuity testing or indeed as a replacement. MIOLs have different add powers and light distribution profiles; consequently the choice of testing distance for near and intermediate acuity measures has a profound impact on results and hence may n...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.