4.6 Article

Areas of agreement in the management of childhood non-infectious chronic anterior uveitis in the UK

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
卷 104, 期 1, 页码 11-16

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2018-313789

关键词

delphi technique; uveitis; child; disease management

资金

  1. National Institute of Health Research
  2. Arthitis Research UK

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background/aims There is a paucity of high-level evidence to support the management of childhood uveitis, particularly for those children without juvenile idiopathic arthritis uveitis (JIA). We undertook a modified Delphi consensus exercise to identify agreement in the management of chronic anterior uveitis (CAU), the most common manifestation of childhood disease. Methods A four-round, two-panel process was undertaken between June and December 2017. Paediatric uveitis specialists identified through multiple sources, including a multicentre network (the Paediatric Ocular Inflammation Group), were invited to participate. They were asked whether they agreed with items derived from existing guidelines on the management of JIA-U when extrapolated to the population of all children with CAU. Consensus was defined as agreement greater than or equal to 75% of respondents. Results 26 of the 38 (68%) invited specialists participated with the exercise, and response rates were 100% for rounds one to three, and 92% for round four. Consensus was reached on 23 of the 44 items. Items for which consensus was not reached included management at presentation, use of systemic and periocular steroids for children with severe disease and the role of conventional steroid sparing immunosuppressants beyond methotrexate. Conclusion The areas of management uncertainty at the level of the group, as indicated by absence of consensus, reflect the areas where the evidence base is particularly poor. Our findings identify the key areas for the future research needed to ensure better outcomes for this blinding childhood ocular inflammatory disorders.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据