A Systematic Review of Glaucoma Diagnosis in Prevalence Studies and Quality of Reporting

Abstract

Précis: This systematic review has revealed that variable definitions of glaucoma continue to be employed in prevalence studies, despite the introduction of the ISGEO criteria. Purpose: To systematically review diagnostic criteria and examinations performed in glaucoma prevalence studies over time and determine the quality of reporting. Accurate estimates of glaucoma prevalence are crucial to inform resource allocation. However, diagnosis of glaucoma comprises inherently subjective examinations and the cross-sectional nature of prevalence studies precludes monitoring for progression. Methods: A systematic review of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus was performed to examine diagnostic protocols employed by glaucoma prevalence studies and evaluate uptake of the International Society of Geographic and Epidemiologic Ophthalmology (ISGEO) criteria, introduced in 2002 to standardise glaucoma diagnosis in prevalence studies. Detection bias and compliance with the Strengthening Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines were evaluated. Results: 10,544 articles were identified. After deduplication, 5,589 articles were screened, yielding 136 articles pertaining to 123 studies. An absence of data in many countries was identified. 92% of studies stated diagnostic criteria, and 62% used the ISGEO criteria since their publication. Weaknesses of the ISGEO criteria were identified. Temporal variations in the performance of various examinations were observed, including heterogeneity in angle assessment. Mean STROBE compliance was 82% (range 59–100%); 72 articles had a low risk of detection bias, 4 had a high risk, and 60 had some concerns. Conclusion: Heterogeneous diagnostic definitions persist in glaucoma prevalence studies, despite introduction of the ISGEO criteria. Standardisation of criteria remains imperative and the development of new criteria represent a valuable opportunity to achieve this goal. Additionally, methods of determining diagnoses are poorly reported, suggesting a need for improvement in study conduct and reporting. Accordingly, we propose the Reporting of quality Of GlaUcoma Epidemiological Studies (ROGUES) Checklist. We have also identified a need for further prevalence studies in regions with limited data and to update Australian ACG prevalence. Design and reporting of future studies can be informed by this review’s insights into diagnostic protocols previously used.