Inequities and Research Gaps in Ophthalmology: A Scoping Review

Variations in Electronic Health Record-Based Definitions of Diabetic Retinopathy Cohorts: A Literature Review and Quantitative Analysis

Purpose

Use of the electronic health record (EHR) has motivated the need for data standardization. A gap in knowledge exists regarding variations in existing terminologies for defining diabetic retinopathy (DR) cohorts. This study aimed to review the literature and analyze variations regarding codified definitions of DR.

Design

Literature review and quantitative analysis.

Subjects

Published manuscripts.

Methods

Four graders reviewed PubMed and Google Scholar for peer-reviewed studies. Studies were included if they used codified definitions of DR (e.g., billing codes). Data elements such as author names, publication year, purpose, data set type, and DR definitions were manually extracted. Each study was reviewed by ≥ 2 authors to validate inclusion eligibility. Quantitative analyses of the codified definitions were then performed to characterize the variation between DR cohort definitions.

Main Outcome Measures

Number of studies included and numeric counts of billing codes used to define codified cohorts.

Results

In total, 43 studies met the inclusion criteria. Half of the included studies used datasets based on structured EHR data (i.e., data registries, institutional EHR review), and half used claims data. All but 1 of the studies used billing codes such as the International Classification of Diseases 9th or 10th edition (ICD-9 or ICD-10), either alone or in addition to another terminology for defining disease. Of the 27 included studies that used ICD-9 and the 20 studies that used ICD-10 codes, the most common codes used pertained to the full spectrum of DR severity. Diabetic retinopathy complications (e.g., vitreous hemorrhage) were also used to define some DR cohorts.

Conclusions

Substantial variations exist among codified definitions for DR cohorts within retrospective studies. Variable definitions may limit generalizability and reproducibility of retrospective studies. More work is needed to standardize disease cohorts.

Financial Disclosures

Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

Gender inclusivity of ophthalmology journal submission guidelines and associated research metrics

PURPOSE

This cross-sectional study evaluated the prevalence of inclusive author submission guidelines across ophthalmology journals.

METHODS

Journals were identified from the 2021 Journal Citations Report (Clarivate Analytics). Independent reviewers rated each author submission guideline as "inclusive" for satisfying at-least one of six criteria: i) included examples of gender inclusive language; ii) recommended the use of gender-inclusive language; iii) distinguished between sex and gender; iv) provided educational resources on gender-inclusive language; v) provided a policy permitting name changes (e.g., in case of gender and name transition); and/or vi) provided a statement of commitment to inclusivity. The primary objective was to investigate the proportion of journals with "gender-inclusive" author submission guidelines and the elements of the gender-inclusive content within these guidelines. A secondary objective was to review the association between "gender-inclusivity" in author submission guidelines with publisher, origin country, and journal/source/influence metrics (Clarivate Analytics).

RESULTS

Across 94 journals, 29.8% journals were rated as inclusive. Inclusive journals had significantly higher relative impact factor, citations, and article influence scores compared to non-inclusive journals. Of the 29.8% of inclusive journals, the three most common domains were inclusion of an inclusivity statement (71.4% of inclusive journals), distinguishing between sex and gender (67.9%), and provision of additional educational resources on gender reporting for authors (60.7%).

CONCLUSION

A minority of ophthalmology journals have gender-inclusive author submission guidelines. Ophthalmology journals should update their submission guidelines to advance gender equity of both authors and study participants and promote the inclusion of gender-diverse communities.

Sex or Gender Reporting in Ophthalmology Clinical Trials Among US Food and Drug Administration Approvals, 1995 to 2022

Importance

As critical determinants of scientific rigor, reproducibility, and equity, sex and gender should be considered in clinical trial design and reporting.

Objective

To evaluate the accuracy of sex and gender reporting and extent of sex- and gender-based analysis in clinical trials associated with US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) drug approvals between January 1, 1995, and December 31, 2022.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this cross-sectional study of participants enrolled in FDA ophthalmology trials, the following trial documents were reviewed by pairs of independent reviewers in decreasing order of priority: peer-reviewed publication, ClinicalTrials.gov report, and FDA medical and statistical reviews. Trial protocols and supplementary materials were also reviewed.

Main Outcome and Measures

The proportion of trials that correctly applied sex and gender terminology, reported the method of assessing sex or gender, and conducted sex- or gender-based data analysis; incorrect application of sex and gender terminology was defined as interchangeable use of sex- and gender-related terms without a clear justification.

Results

Between 1995 and 2022, 34 ophthalmic drugs corresponding to 85 trials (34 740 participants) received FDA approval, of which 16 drugs (47.1%) corresponding to 32 trials (18 535 participants [37.6%]) were associated with peer-reviewed publications. Sixteen trials used sex and gender terminology correctly (19.5%). No trial reported how sex and gender were collected nor enrolled participants from sexual and gender identity minority populations. Most trials reported sex- and gender-disaggregated demographic data (96.5%), but few conducted sex- or gender-based analysis for data on dropout (1.2%), primary outcomes (28.2%), secondary outcomes (2.4%), and adverse events (9.4%). Erroneous sex and gender reporting was associated with later publication year (2008.5 vs 2001.0; median difference, 7.5; 95% CI, -6.0 to 11.0; P < .001) and higher journal influence metrics, including 2022 journal impact factor (13.7 vs 5.9; median difference, 7.8; 95% CI, -1.4 to 152.4, P < .001) and 2022 journal citation indicator (4.9 vs 2.1; median difference, 2.9; 95% CI, 0-20.0, P < .001).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this observational study, over three-quarters of ophthalmology trials associated with FDA drug approvals conflated sex and gender and over two-thirds lacked sex- and gender-based analyses. More rigorous integration of sex and gender appears warranted for FDA, and presumably other trials, to improve their validity, reproducibility, and equity.

Diversity, equity and inclusion in ophthalmology

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in ophthalmology have received increased attention in recent years. This review will highlight disparities, barriers to workforce diversity, as well as current and future efforts to improve DEI in ophthalmology.

RECENT FINDINGS

Racial, ethnic, socioeconomic and sex disparities exist in vision health and across many ophthalmology subspecialties. The pervasive disparities result from factors such as a lack of access to eye care. In addition, ophthalmology is one of the least diverse specialties at the resident and faculty level. The lack of diversity has also been documented in ophthalmology clinical trials, wherein participant demographics do not reflect the diversity of the U.S. population.

SUMMARY

Addressing social determinants of health including racism and discrimination is necessary to promote equity in vision health. Diversifying the workforce and expanding the representation of marginalized groups in clinical research are also paramount. Supporting existing programmes and creating new ones focusing on improving workforce diversity and reducing eye care disparities are essential to ensure equity in vision health for all Americans.