[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.147.238.168. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Download PDF
Table.  
Summary of Standard Set of Outcomes for Cataract Surgerya
Summary of Standard Set of Outcomes for Cataract Surgerya
1.
Resnikoff  S, Pascolini  D, Etya’ale  D,  et al.  Global data on visual impairment in the year 2002. Bull World Health Organ. 2004;82(11):844-851.
PubMed
2.
Tabin  G, Chen  M, Espandar  L.  Cataract surgery for the developing world. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2008;19(1):55-59.
PubMedArticle
3.
Semmens  JB, Li  J, Morlet  N, Ng  J; teamEPSWA.  Trends in cataract surgery and postoperative endophthalmitis in Western Australia (1980-1998): the Endophthalmitis Population Study of Western Australia. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol. 2003;31(3):213-219.
PubMedArticle
4.
Stenevi  U, Lundström  M, Thorburn  W.  A national cataract register, I: description and epidemiology. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 1995;73(1):41-44.
PubMedArticle
5.
Behndig  A, Montan  P, Stenevi  U, Kugelberg  M, Lundström  M.  One million cataract surgeries: Swedish National Cataract Register 1992-2009. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2011;37(8):1539-1545.
PubMedArticle
6.
Brian  G, Taylor  H.  Cataract blindness: challenges for the 21st century. Bull World Health Organ. 2001;79(3):249-256.
PubMed
7.
Erie  JC.  Rising cataract surgery rates: demand and supply. Ophthalmology. 2014;121(1):2-4.
PubMedArticle
8.
Lundström  M, Goh  P-P, Henry  Y,  et al.  The changing pattern of cataract surgery indications: a 5-year study of 2 cataract surgery databases. Ophthalmology. 2015;122(1):31-38.
PubMedArticle
9.
Anand  R, Gupta  A, Ram  J, Singh  U, Kumar  R.  Visual outcome following cataract surgery in rural Punjab. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2000;48(2):153-158.
PubMed
10.
Bourne  RRA, Stevens  GA, White  RA,  et al; Vision Loss Expert Group.  Causes of vision loss worldwide, 1990-2010: a systematic analysis. Lancet Glob Health. 2013;1(6):e339-e349.
PubMedArticle
11.
Dandona  L, Dandona  R, Srinivas  M,  et al.  Blindness in the Indian state of Andhra Pradesh. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2001;42(5):908-916.
PubMed
12.
Gogate  PM, Deshpande  M, Wormald  RP, Deshpande  R, Kulkarni  SR.  Extracapsular cataract surgery compared with manual small incision cataract surgery in community eye care setting in western India: a randomised controlled trial. Br J Ophthalmol. 2003;87(6):667-672.
PubMedArticle
13.
Hennig  A, Kumar  J, Yorston  D, Foster  A.  Sutureless cataract surgery with nucleus extraction: outcome of a prospective study in Nepal. Br J Ophthalmol. 2003;87(3):266-270.
PubMedArticle
14.
Jiang  Y, Foster  PJ.  Quality assessment of cataract surgery in regions with low follow-up rates. Lancet Glob Health. 2013;1(1):e9-e10.
PubMedArticle
15.
Goh  PP, Elias  H, Norfariza  N, Mariam  I; National Eye Database Steering Committee.  National Eye Database: a web based surveillance system. Med J Malaysia. 2008;63(suppl C):20-23.
PubMed
16.
Lundström  M, Barry  P, Henry  Y, Rosen  P, Stenevi  U.  Visual outcome of cataract surgery: study from the European Registry of Quality Outcomes for Cataract and Refractive Surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2013;39(5):673-679.
PubMedArticle
17.
Lum  F, Schachat  AP, Jampel  HD.  The development and demise of a cataract surgery database. Jt Comm J Qual Improv. 2002;28(3):108-114.
PubMed
18.
Haripriya  A, Chang  DF, Reena  M, Shekhar  M.  Complication rates of phacoemulsification and manual small-incision cataract surgery at Aravind Eye Hospital. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2012;38(8):1360-1369.
PubMedArticle
19.
Jaycock  P, Johnston  RL, Taylor  H,  et al; UK EPR User Group.  The Cataract National Dataset electronic multi-centre audit of 55,567 operations: updating benchmark standards of care in the United Kingdom and internationally. Eye (Lond). 2009;23(1):38-49.
PubMedArticle
20.
Lundström  M, Stenevi  U.  Analyzing patient-reported outcomes to improve cataract care. Optom Vis Sci. 2013;90(8):754-759.
PubMedArticle
21.
Lundström  M, Brege  KG, Florén  I, Stenevi  U, Thorburn  W.  Strategy to reduce the number of patients perceiving impaired visual function after cataract surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2002;28(6):971-976.
PubMedArticle
22.
McAlinden  C, Gothwal  VK, Khadka  J, Wright  TA, Lamoureux  EL, Pesudovs  K.  A head-to-head comparison of 16 cataract surgery outcome questionnaires. Ophthalmology. 2011;118(12):2374-2381.
PubMedArticle
23.
Pesudovs  K, Wright  TA, Gothwal  VK.  Visual disability assessment: valid measurement of activity limitation and mobility in cataract patients. Br J Ophthalmol. 2010;94(6):777-781.
PubMedArticle
24.
Kowalski  JW, Rentz  AM, Walt  JG,  et al.  Rasch analysis in the development of a simplified version of the National Eye Institute Visual-Function Questionnaire–25 for utility estimation. Qual Life Res. 2012;21(2):323-334.
PubMedArticle
25.
Lundström  M, Pesudovs  K.  Questionnaires for measuring cataract surgery outcomes. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2011;37(5):945-959.
PubMedArticle
26.
Moisseiev  E, Kinori  M, Glovinsky  Y, Loewenstein  A, Moisseiev  J, Barak  A.  Retained lens fragments: nucleus fragments are associated with worse prognosis than cortex or epinucleus fragments. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2011;21(6):741-747.
PubMedArticle
27.
Salehi  A, Razmju  H, Beni  AN, Beni  ZN.  Visual outcome of early and late pars plana vitrectomy in patients with dropped nucleus during phacoemulsification. J Res Med Sci. 2011;16(11):1422-1429.
PubMed
28.
Friling  E, Lundström  M, Stenevi  U, Montan  P.  Six-year incidence of endophthalmitis after cataract surgery: Swedish national study. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2013;39(1):15-21.
PubMedArticle
29.
Malhotra  S, Mandal  P, Patanker  G, Agrawal  D.  Clinical profile and visual outcome in cluster endophthalmitis following cataract surgery in Central India. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2008;56(2):157-158.
PubMedArticle
30.
Al-Mezaine  HS, Kangave  D, Al-Assiri  A, Al-Rajhi  AA.  Acute-onset nosocomial endophthalmitis after cataract surgery: incidence, clinical features, causative organisms, and visual outcomes. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2009;35(4):643-649.
PubMedArticle
31.
Welch  J, Vani  A, Cackett  P,  et al.  Glaucoma surgery: trainee outcomes and implications for future training: southeast Scotland. Eye (Lond). 2010;24(11):1700-1707.
PubMedArticle
32.
Claesson  M, Armitage  WJ, Stenevi  U.  Corneal oedema after cataract surgery: predisposing factors and corneal graft outcome. Acta Ophthalmol. 2009;87(2):154-159.
PubMedArticle
33.
Díaz Lacalle  V, Orbegozo Gárate  FJ, Martinez Alday  N, López Garrido  JA, Aramberri Agesta  J.  Phacoemulsification cataract surgery in vitrectomized eyes. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1998;24(6):806-809.
PubMedArticle
34.
Lai  FH, Lok  JY, Chow  PP, Young  AL.  Clinical outcomes of cataract surgery in very elderly adults. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2014;62(1):165-170.
PubMedArticle
35.
Sparrow  JM, Taylor  H, Qureshi  K, Smith  R, Birnie  K, Johnston  RL; UK EPR user group.  The Cataract National Dataset electronic multi-centre audit of 55,567 operations: risk indicators for monocular visual acuity outcomes. Eye (Lond). 2012;26(6):821-826.
PubMedArticle
36.
Keay  L, Lindsley  K, Tielsch  J, Katz  J, Schein  O.  Routine preoperative medical testing for cataract surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;3:CD007293.
PubMed
37.
Blomquist  PH, Morales  ME, Tong  L, Ahn  C.  Risk factors for vitreous complications in resident-performed phacoemulsification surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2012;38(2):208-214.
PubMedArticle
38.
Hayashi  K, Manabe  S, Yoshimura  K, Kondo  H.  Corneal endothelial damage after cataract surgery in eyes with pseudoexfoliation syndrome. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2013;39(6):881-887.
PubMedArticle
39.
Kohnen  T.  Pseudoexfoliation: impact on cataract surgery and long-term intraocular lens position. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2010;36(8):1247-1248.
PubMedArticle
40.
Al-Mujaini  A, Wali  UK.  Visual outcome following extracapsular cataract extraction in mature cataracts with pseudoexfoliation syndrome: a retrospective study. Oman J Ophthalmol. 2013;6(1):23-26.
PubMedArticle
41.
Narendran  N, Jaycock  P, Johnston  RL,  et al.  The Cataract National Dataset electronic multicentre audit of 55,567 operations: risk stratification for posterior capsule rupture and vitreous loss. Eye (Lond). 2009;23(1):31-37.
PubMedArticle
42.
Panda  A, Krishna  SN, Dada  T.  Outcome of phacoemulsification in eyes with cataract and cornea opacity partially obscuring the pupillary area. Nepal J Ophthalmol. 2012;4(2):217-223.
PubMed
43.
Shingleton  BJ, Marvin  AC, Heier  JS,  et al.  Pseudoexfoliation: high risk factors for zonule weakness and concurrent vitrectomy during phacoemulsification. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2010;36(8):1261-1269.
PubMedArticle
44.
Sufi  AR, Singh  T, Mufti  AA, Rather  MH.  Outcome of phacoemulsification in patients with and without pseudoexfoliation syndrome in Kashmir. BMC Ophthalmol. 2012;12:13.
PubMedArticle
45.
Susić  N, Brajković  J, Susić  E, Kalauz-Surać  I.  Phacoemulsification in eyes with white cataract. Acta Clin Croat. 2010;49(3):343-345.
PubMed
46.
Gothwal  VK, Wright  TA, Lamoureux  EL, Khadka  J, McAlinden  C, Pesudovs  K.  Improvements in visual ability with first-eye, second-eye, and bilateral cataract surgery measured with the visual symptoms and quality of life questionnaire. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2011;37(7):1208-1216.
PubMedArticle
47.
Javitt  JC, Brenner  MH, Curbow  B, Legro  MW, Street  DA.  Outcomes of cataract surgery: improvement in visual acuity and subjective visual function after surgery in the first, second, and both eyes. Arch Ophthalmol. 1993;111(5):686-691.
PubMedArticle
48.
Wesolosky  JD, Rudnisky  CJ.  Relationship between cataract severity and socioeconomic status. Can J Ophthalmol. 2013;48(6):471-477.
PubMedArticle
49.
Zhang  X, Cotch  MF, Ryskulova  A,  et al.  Vision health disparities in the United States by race/ethnicity, education, and economic status: findings from two nationally representative surveys. Am J Ophthalmol. 2012;154(6)(suppl):S53-S62.e1.
PubMedArticle
50.
Kinard  K, Jarstad  A, Olson  RJ.  Correlation of visual quality with satisfaction and function in a normal cohort of pseudophakic patients. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2013;39(4):590-597.
PubMedArticle
51.
Sorenson  C, Drummond  M.  Improving medical device regulation: the United States and Europe in perspective. Milbank Q. 2014;92(1):114-150.
PubMedArticle
Original Investigation
November 2015

A Proposed Minimum Standard Set of Outcome Measures for Cataract Surgery

Author Affiliations
  • 1International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement, Cambridge, Massachusetts
  • 2Department of Intraocular Lens and Cataract Services, Aravind Eye Care System, Madurai, India
  • 3St Erik Eye Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
  • 4European Cancer Patient Coalition, Brussels, Belgium
  • 5Curtin Health Innovation Research Institute, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
  • 6Byers Eye Institute, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California
  • 7VA Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, California
  • 8American Academy of Ophthalmology, San Francisco, California
  • 9Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
  • 10National Cataract Registry, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
  • 11The Royal College of Ophthalmologists National Ophthalmology Database, London, United Kingdom
  • 12European Registry of Quality Outcomes for Cataract and Refractive Surgery, Dublin, Ireland
JAMA Ophthalmol. 2015;133(11):1247-1252. doi:10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2015.2810
Abstract

Importance  Aligning outcome measures for cataract surgery, one of the most frequently performed procedures globally, may facilitate international comparisons that can drive improvements in the outcomes most meaningful to patients.

Objective  To propose a minimum standard set of outcome measures for cataract surgery that enables global comparisons.

Design, Setting, and Participants  A working group of international experts in cataract outcomes and registries was convened, along with a patient advocate, to agree on a consensus of outcome measures for cataract surgery. In a modified Delphi process, the group met regularly between November 10, 2012, and November 21, 2013, to discuss which outcomes to include in a standard set. Included factors were based on extant literature, existing registries, and the experience of group members. Similarly, a series of consensus discussions were held to determine a set of risk factors to be gathered for each patient. The final shortlist was compiled into a standard set. Analysis was performed from November 22, 2013, to April 5, 2014.

Main Outcomes and Measures  Development of a recommended standard set encompassing preoperative metrics including patient risk factors, intraoperative factors including surgical complications, and postoperative cataract surgery outcomes.

Results  The recommended standard set encompasses all patients treated for cataracts by 1 of 4 surgical approaches (phacoemulsification, sutured manual extracapsular cataract extraction, sutureless manual extracapsular cataract extraction, or intracapsular cataract extraction). The recommended metrics to be recorded preoperatively include demographics, ocular history and comorbidities, preoperative visual acuity, and patient-reported visual function. The recommended outcomes were split into intraoperative and postoperative metrics. Intraoperative outcomes include capsule-related problems, dislocation of lens nucleus fragments into the vitreous, and other complications. Postoperative outcomes include visual acuity, refractive error, patient-reported visual function, and early and late complications of surgery. The suggested follow-up for collection of postoperative outcomes is up to 3 months.

Conclusions and Relevance  A minimum standard set of outcome measures for cataract surgery is important for meaningful comparison across contexts. The proposed data set is a compromise between all useful data and the practicalities of data collection.

Introduction

Cataract, a progressive opacity of the ocular lens, is the single largest cause of reversible blindness worldwide. The only effective treatment for cataract is surgical extraction, for which several techniques exist. Despite its effectiveness, rates of cataract surgery vary substantially between countries. In developed countries, operations are increasingly performed on cataracts in the early stage, whereas in developing countries, 90% of cases of blindness are attributable to untreated cataracts.1,2 Cataract surgery has become the most common elective surgical procedure in many countries,3,4 and rates of this surgery are likely to continue increasing as access improves in developing countries.58

The need for systematic measurement of outcomes after cataract surgery is greater than ever. Despite marked improvements in quality throughout the years, life-altering complications of cataract surgery, such as blindness, still occur.913 With increasing numbers of patients undergoing cataract surgery,7 the need to adequately balance these risks with the expected benefit is paramount.14

Since the first cataract registry was established in Sweden,4 numerous registries have systematically collected outcome data after cataract surgery (such as the Malaysian National Eye Database,15 the European Registry of Quality Outcomes for Cataract and Refractive Surgery,16 the National Eye Outcomes Network in the United States,17 the Aravind Cataract Registry in India,18 and the United Kingdom’s Cataract National Data Set19). To compare outcomes between countries and thereby learn and improve processes, a common data set with common definitions is needed.

To encourage the broader measurement of outcomes and collaboration on global outcome comparisons, the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) formed a working group to develop a global standard set of outcomes for cataract surgery that we recommend all health care professionals who perform cataract surgery track. The resultant set is presented here.

Box Section Ref ID

At a Glance

  • The purpose of this study was to develop an outcomes framework for cataract surgery that can be used worldwide.

  • Cataract surgery is one of the most frequently performed surgical procedures worldwide.

  • Patient outcomes for cataract surgery vary greatly between health care professionals and contexts; therefore, existing registries have begun to gather outcomes information.

  • This article describes the development of a recommended standard set of outcome measures that can be tracked for cataract surgery worldwide.

  • This standard set may enable global comparisons and help to drive improvements in outcomes that are relevant to patients.

Methods
Assembly of the Working Group

A working group of leading experts in the fields of cataract surgery and outcome measurement was convened under the leadership of the previous director of the Swedish National Cataract Register and clinical director of the European Registry of Quality Outcomes for Cataract and Refractive Surgery project (M.L.). Working group members were selected on the basis of their prior experience with outcomes measurement in cataract surgery or involvement in clinical registries. They were drawn from a wide range of international backgrounds, including the United States (S.P. and C.S.), Great Britain (T.K., I.M., and J.M.S.), India (A.H.), Sweden (A.B. and M.L.), Australia (N.M. and K.P.), and Malaysia (P.P.G.). The group included ophthalmologists, an optometrist, an executive at an eye hospital, and an experienced patient advocate who had recently undergone cataract surgery. A project leader from ICHOM (T.K.) managed the effort, and an ICHOM research fellow (I.M.) supported the content development. Institutional review board approval was not required because the study did not involve patient or registry data.

Compilation of Standard Set

A modified Delphi technique was used to develop the standard set. Between November 10, 2012, and November 21, 2013, the working group met every 4 to 6 weeks by teleconference to discuss outcomes and risk factors for inclusion in the standard set. Using existing registries and published data as a starting point, a long list of measures was collated and refined through consensus discussions steered by the leader of the working group. Definitions of measures were then refined to prioritize ease of interpretation and data collection across a variety of contexts. Following teleconferences, members submitted their feedback and final votes on the content of the standard set through electronic surveys. The group used a threshold of two-thirds of the members in agreement to identify when a particular point could be decided. In cases in which that threshold was not met, that point was revisited during the next teleconference and on the following survey. The final standard set (Table) was approved unanimously by all members of the working group. Analysis was performed from November 22, 2013, to April 5, 2014.

Results
Treatment Approaches Covered

Continued innovation in cataract surgery has led to a wide spectrum of surgical variables, including type of anesthesia, incision size, lens disassembly technique, use of ultrasound phacoemulsification, intraocular lens material, implantation position (capsular bag vs sulcus vs anterior chamber), and femtosecond laser–assisted surgery. In addition, innovations in intraocular lenses include toric intraocular lenses to correct astigmatism and multifocal or accommodating intraocular lenses to address presbyopia. The result is an almost infinite variety of unique surgical approaches. We have developed a pragmatic compromise; namely, to limit the initial data set to the minimum number of broad categories chosen to be sufficiently discriminatory to warrant separation: phacoemulsification, sutured manual extracapsular cataract extraction, sutureless manual extracapsular cataract extraction, and intracapsular cataract extraction.

Visual Outcome

Improved vision is the primary motivation for most patients seeking cataract surgery and is an essential component of any outcome assessment. Visual acuity reflects the established criterion standard of visual function that strongly correlates with quality of life and patient-reported health outcomes. There are many different visual acuity notations used in practice, but they are readily interconverted. We recommend that clinics use their standard notation when recording visual acuity but that these are subsequently transposed into logMAR notations to enable comparison.

Refractive Outcome

Refractive error is important to capture because it affects vision-related quality of life. As postoperative refraction may intentionally deviate from emmetropia (eg, monovision), we suggest capturing the target refraction and the actual postoperative refractive error.

Patient-Reported Visual Functioning

It is increasingly clear that a successful visual outcome, as measured by visual acuity, is not synonymous with improved visual functioning for patients.20,21 To fully understand the effect of cataract surgery, we must also assess the patients’ view of whether their lives have improved. Today, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are less widespread than measurements of visual acuity or refractive error, but implementing regular PROMs as part of routine clinical practice is possible.5

Many PROMs exist, and results following cataract surgery vary worldwide.22 Examples include the Visual Disability Assessment,23 National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire,24 and the Catquest-9SF.22,25 Although we recommend use of a freely available, short, responsive Rasch-calibrated PROM such as the Catquest-9SF, we recognize that a variety of PROM tools are widely adopted and some centers may elect to use fixed scoring instruments. We recommend that centers collect PROM data using an instrument of their preference. By assessing PROMs using cross-talk algorithms at the same time points as recommended in this study, Rasch-calibrated PROM outcomes can be meaningfully compared between centers tracking the standard set.

Complications

Complications, although uncommon, are of significant concern to patients undergoing cataract surgery. In the developed world, many patients who undergo cataract surgery have only mild impairment in visual functioning and most weigh the improvement in visual function against the small but potentially life-altering concern of a serious complication. We recommend capturing intraoperative and postoperative complications.

The most common, significant intraoperative complications include capsule-related problems and dislocation of lens nucleus fragments or entrance of lens fragments into the vitreous, both of which we recommend be recorded as part of the standard set. Numerous studies have demonstrated poor patient-reported outcomes in cases involving capsule-related surgical complications.20 Retained cataract fragments are also associated with complicated and prolonged cataract surgery, poorer visual acuity outcomes, longer recovery, increased risk of secondary complications, and poor PROMs. Subsequent vitrectomy surgery is often required to remove the fragments, which may result in poor visual outcomes from mechanical damage to the retina, persistent intraocular inflammation, and/or glaucoma.26,27

We also recommend tracking a category of other unnamed complications that may threaten the visual outcome. A high frequency of other complications may prompt investigation of clinical records to identify the sources and may inform inclusion of more detailed measures in later iterations of this standard set.

For postoperative complications, we recommend tracking the incidence of endophthalmitis. Although endophthalmitis occurs rarely, its inclusion in the standard set reflects its potentially devastating effect on visual outcomes and its frequent association with posterior capsule rupture.5,2830 Return to the operating theater is included in the standard set to capture several rare but significant early complications that may threaten visual outcome and are often correlated with an inexperienced surgeon.31 Although we recommend recording this outcome within 3 months postoperatively, we recognize that doing so may present challenges given that these data are not routinely gathered. Persistent corneal edema is another devastating complication included in the list. This complication often leads to a corneal transplantation.32

Baseline Characteristics

To make meaningful comparisons of outcomes between patients, it is important to measure certain baseline characteristics to enable appropriate adjustment. The selected demographics, comorbidities, and ocular history (Table) represent the most common characteristics that affect clinical outcomes following cataract surgery.3335 Systemic comorbidities, such as hypertension and cardiovascular disease, are not included because they pose little risk to patients undergoing cataract surgery.36 We also recommend recording factors such as anatomical or pathological variants and intraoperative findings that make surgery more technically challenging. Such findings include dense brown or white cataract, corneal opacities, pseudoexfoliation, and problems with the pupil, as they may increase the risk of an adverse outcome.3745 To ensure that patients can be followed up appropriately and diagnoses verified, we recommend that comorbidities and prior ophthalmic interventions recorded in the set be documented within the patient’s clinical record before or immediately after surgery.

Measures of patient-reported visual function following cataract surgery are influenced greatly by whether the eye undergoing the procedure is the patient’s first or second eye to undergo cataract surgery.46,47 To account for this influence, we recommend the collection of visual acuity and refractive error data from both eyes along with any history of cataract surgery on the fellow eye. The inclusion of a measure of socioeconomic status (SES) was discussed because it is well documented that SES is inversely linked with cataract severity48 and that patients of lower SES have more limited access to treatments.49 However, there is no accepted worldwide standard measure of SES for all contexts. Given the many difficulties in defining and interpreting different SES measures, SES was not included in this initial minimum standard set, although this may change in future iterations.

Follow-up Time

We recommend a universal window of up to 3 months for initial follow-up for simplicity and feasibility. Allowing patient follow-up at any point within 3 months after surgery should give most clinics enough time to record early complications, measure visual acuity and refractive error, and obtain the PROM.

Discussion

The working group set out to develop a minimum set of patient-centered outcomes for cataract surgery that would be practical for all health care professionals to track and that would yield meaningful results for patients wishing to choose their physician and/or health care organization and for health care professionals wishing to objectively assess their performance. The outcome standard set that has been developed includes a patient-reported outcome questionnaire, measures of intraoperative and postoperative complications, and key outcomes including postoperative visual acuity and refractive error. Additional risk factors were collected to ensure that it will be possible to perform meaningful case mix–adjusted comparisons. Of course, measures included in the standard set reflect the need for meaningful and pragmatic data collection that can be incorporated into existing patient pathways in a variety of clinical contexts. Of necessity, the resultant data set is therefore a compromise between all that is useful for comparison and the practicalities of data collection.

Data points that were considered but ultimately excluded for this reason include, but are not limited to, the type of intraocular lens used, surgical time, whether the procedure was inpatient or ambulatory, SES, antibiotic prophylaxis, medications, systemic comorbidities, and geographical location. Postoperative visual symptoms, such as positive or negative dysphotopsia, were also considered for inclusion, but the difficulty in defining a solid and indisputable variable to be collected for registry use hampered the incorporation of such symptoms into the standard set at this time. Severe problems with dysphotopsia may be captured by the satisfaction component of PROM instruments.50 Interested centers should add additional outcomes to meet their specific requirements.

Data on the cost of cataract surgery are of great interest when considering the value of surgery (defined as outcomes per unit cost). These data will be considered in a subsequent analysis focusing on the denominator of the value equation.

We anticipate that the greatest strength of this data set will be consistency across international registries that will allow global comparison of outcomes. However, the infrastructure for data collection varies greatly across countries and health systems. For example, feasibility of follow-up may be difficult in some cases owing to patient volume, geographic distances, and availability of transportation. Also of concern will be issues of data sharing and ownership and patient privacy. These are pervasive issues across data collection registries, particularly in an environment of increased electronic communication and, in many countries, increased regulatory oversight. Nevertheless, this minimum data set is realistic in most settings, and participation and feedback will inform future iterations.

A possible future use of a data set such as this is to form part of an approval process for devices used in cataract surgery. This process has previously been suggested for both the United States and Europe.51

Zonular integrity is important for the outcome of cataract surgery. Phacodonesis may be a challenge during surgery, and more discrete zonular deficiency may cause long-term issues, such as intraocular lens dislocation, and present as a late complication. In future revisions we will discuss inclusion of this risk factor as a stand-alone risk factor rather than being included in the pseudoexfoliation variable. Of course, this is the minimum data set, and there is nothing to preclude centers from collecting additional important data such as zonular integrity.

We believe that this data set builds on existing national registries by aligning the metrics used across a larger scale and steering data collection efforts toward outcomes that matter most to patients. As a result, we hope to achieve international alignment on metrics that are most meaningful to patients.

Conclusions

The ICHOM will work with organizations worldwide to encourage adoption of the cataract standard set and is planning to facilitate global comparisons between health care organizations as adoption of the standard set takes place. These comparisons will give surgeons a unique opportunity to learn from global best practice and enable them to provide the best care for their patients. The ICHOM will form a cataract standard set steering committee to review and, if necessary, update this set on an annual basis, ensuring that it remains current and relevant for patients and physicians.

Back to top
Article Information

Submitted for Publication: March 26, 2015; final revision received June 20, 2015; accepted June 23, 2015.

Corresponding Author: Imran Mahmud, MD, MPH, International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement, 12 Arrow St, Ste 110, Cambridge, MA 02138 (imran@mail.harvard.edu).

Published Online: August 20, 2015. doi:10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2015.2810.

Author Contributions: Dr Kelley had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Study concept and design: Mahmud, Kelley, Stowell, Haripriya, Boman, Kossler, Morlet, Pershing, Pesudovs, Goh, Lundström.

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Mahmud, Kelley, Stowell, Pershing, Pesudovs, Sparrow, Lundström.

Drafting of the manuscript: Mahmud, Kelley, Lundström, Kossler, Morlet, Pesudovs, Goh.

Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Mahmud, Kelley, Stowell, Haripriya, Boman, Morlet, Pershing, Pesudovs, Goh, Sparrow, Lundström.

Statistical analysis: Pesudovs, Goh, Lundström.

Administrative, technical, or material support: Kelley, Stowell, Haripriya, Boman, Pesudovs, Sparrow.

Study supervision: Mahmud, Kelley, Stowell, Boman, Morlet, Lundström.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: All authors have completed and submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest and none were reported.

Funding/Support: This work was supported by the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM).

Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The ICHOM had no part in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, and approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Previous Presentation: A version of this study was presented at the Second Annual ICHOM Conference; November 21, 2013; Cambridge, Massachusetts.

References
1.
Resnikoff  S, Pascolini  D, Etya’ale  D,  et al.  Global data on visual impairment in the year 2002. Bull World Health Organ. 2004;82(11):844-851.
PubMed
2.
Tabin  G, Chen  M, Espandar  L.  Cataract surgery for the developing world. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2008;19(1):55-59.
PubMedArticle
3.
Semmens  JB, Li  J, Morlet  N, Ng  J; teamEPSWA.  Trends in cataract surgery and postoperative endophthalmitis in Western Australia (1980-1998): the Endophthalmitis Population Study of Western Australia. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol. 2003;31(3):213-219.
PubMedArticle
4.
Stenevi  U, Lundström  M, Thorburn  W.  A national cataract register, I: description and epidemiology. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 1995;73(1):41-44.
PubMedArticle
5.
Behndig  A, Montan  P, Stenevi  U, Kugelberg  M, Lundström  M.  One million cataract surgeries: Swedish National Cataract Register 1992-2009. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2011;37(8):1539-1545.
PubMedArticle
6.
Brian  G, Taylor  H.  Cataract blindness: challenges for the 21st century. Bull World Health Organ. 2001;79(3):249-256.
PubMed
7.
Erie  JC.  Rising cataract surgery rates: demand and supply. Ophthalmology. 2014;121(1):2-4.
PubMedArticle
8.
Lundström  M, Goh  P-P, Henry  Y,  et al.  The changing pattern of cataract surgery indications: a 5-year study of 2 cataract surgery databases. Ophthalmology. 2015;122(1):31-38.
PubMedArticle
9.
Anand  R, Gupta  A, Ram  J, Singh  U, Kumar  R.  Visual outcome following cataract surgery in rural Punjab. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2000;48(2):153-158.
PubMed
10.
Bourne  RRA, Stevens  GA, White  RA,  et al; Vision Loss Expert Group.  Causes of vision loss worldwide, 1990-2010: a systematic analysis. Lancet Glob Health. 2013;1(6):e339-e349.
PubMedArticle
11.
Dandona  L, Dandona  R, Srinivas  M,  et al.  Blindness in the Indian state of Andhra Pradesh. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2001;42(5):908-916.
PubMed
12.
Gogate  PM, Deshpande  M, Wormald  RP, Deshpande  R, Kulkarni  SR.  Extracapsular cataract surgery compared with manual small incision cataract surgery in community eye care setting in western India: a randomised controlled trial. Br J Ophthalmol. 2003;87(6):667-672.
PubMedArticle
13.
Hennig  A, Kumar  J, Yorston  D, Foster  A.  Sutureless cataract surgery with nucleus extraction: outcome of a prospective study in Nepal. Br J Ophthalmol. 2003;87(3):266-270.
PubMedArticle
14.
Jiang  Y, Foster  PJ.  Quality assessment of cataract surgery in regions with low follow-up rates. Lancet Glob Health. 2013;1(1):e9-e10.
PubMedArticle
15.
Goh  PP, Elias  H, Norfariza  N, Mariam  I; National Eye Database Steering Committee.  National Eye Database: a web based surveillance system. Med J Malaysia. 2008;63(suppl C):20-23.
PubMed
16.
Lundström  M, Barry  P, Henry  Y, Rosen  P, Stenevi  U.  Visual outcome of cataract surgery: study from the European Registry of Quality Outcomes for Cataract and Refractive Surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2013;39(5):673-679.
PubMedArticle
17.
Lum  F, Schachat  AP, Jampel  HD.  The development and demise of a cataract surgery database. Jt Comm J Qual Improv. 2002;28(3):108-114.
PubMed
18.
Haripriya  A, Chang  DF, Reena  M, Shekhar  M.  Complication rates of phacoemulsification and manual small-incision cataract surgery at Aravind Eye Hospital. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2012;38(8):1360-1369.
PubMedArticle
19.
Jaycock  P, Johnston  RL, Taylor  H,  et al; UK EPR User Group.  The Cataract National Dataset electronic multi-centre audit of 55,567 operations: updating benchmark standards of care in the United Kingdom and internationally. Eye (Lond). 2009;23(1):38-49.
PubMedArticle
20.
Lundström  M, Stenevi  U.  Analyzing patient-reported outcomes to improve cataract care. Optom Vis Sci. 2013;90(8):754-759.
PubMedArticle
21.
Lundström  M, Brege  KG, Florén  I, Stenevi  U, Thorburn  W.  Strategy to reduce the number of patients perceiving impaired visual function after cataract surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2002;28(6):971-976.
PubMedArticle
22.
McAlinden  C, Gothwal  VK, Khadka  J, Wright  TA, Lamoureux  EL, Pesudovs  K.  A head-to-head comparison of 16 cataract surgery outcome questionnaires. Ophthalmology. 2011;118(12):2374-2381.
PubMedArticle
23.
Pesudovs  K, Wright  TA, Gothwal  VK.  Visual disability assessment: valid measurement of activity limitation and mobility in cataract patients. Br J Ophthalmol. 2010;94(6):777-781.
PubMedArticle
24.
Kowalski  JW, Rentz  AM, Walt  JG,  et al.  Rasch analysis in the development of a simplified version of the National Eye Institute Visual-Function Questionnaire–25 for utility estimation. Qual Life Res. 2012;21(2):323-334.
PubMedArticle
25.
Lundström  M, Pesudovs  K.  Questionnaires for measuring cataract surgery outcomes. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2011;37(5):945-959.
PubMedArticle
26.
Moisseiev  E, Kinori  M, Glovinsky  Y, Loewenstein  A, Moisseiev  J, Barak  A.  Retained lens fragments: nucleus fragments are associated with worse prognosis than cortex or epinucleus fragments. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2011;21(6):741-747.
PubMedArticle
27.
Salehi  A, Razmju  H, Beni  AN, Beni  ZN.  Visual outcome of early and late pars plana vitrectomy in patients with dropped nucleus during phacoemulsification. J Res Med Sci. 2011;16(11):1422-1429.
PubMed
28.
Friling  E, Lundström  M, Stenevi  U, Montan  P.  Six-year incidence of endophthalmitis after cataract surgery: Swedish national study. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2013;39(1):15-21.
PubMedArticle
29.
Malhotra  S, Mandal  P, Patanker  G, Agrawal  D.  Clinical profile and visual outcome in cluster endophthalmitis following cataract surgery in Central India. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2008;56(2):157-158.
PubMedArticle
30.
Al-Mezaine  HS, Kangave  D, Al-Assiri  A, Al-Rajhi  AA.  Acute-onset nosocomial endophthalmitis after cataract surgery: incidence, clinical features, causative organisms, and visual outcomes. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2009;35(4):643-649.
PubMedArticle
31.
Welch  J, Vani  A, Cackett  P,  et al.  Glaucoma surgery: trainee outcomes and implications for future training: southeast Scotland. Eye (Lond). 2010;24(11):1700-1707.
PubMedArticle
32.
Claesson  M, Armitage  WJ, Stenevi  U.  Corneal oedema after cataract surgery: predisposing factors and corneal graft outcome. Acta Ophthalmol. 2009;87(2):154-159.
PubMedArticle
33.
Díaz Lacalle  V, Orbegozo Gárate  FJ, Martinez Alday  N, López Garrido  JA, Aramberri Agesta  J.  Phacoemulsification cataract surgery in vitrectomized eyes. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1998;24(6):806-809.
PubMedArticle
34.
Lai  FH, Lok  JY, Chow  PP, Young  AL.  Clinical outcomes of cataract surgery in very elderly adults. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2014;62(1):165-170.
PubMedArticle
35.
Sparrow  JM, Taylor  H, Qureshi  K, Smith  R, Birnie  K, Johnston  RL; UK EPR user group.  The Cataract National Dataset electronic multi-centre audit of 55,567 operations: risk indicators for monocular visual acuity outcomes. Eye (Lond). 2012;26(6):821-826.
PubMedArticle
36.
Keay  L, Lindsley  K, Tielsch  J, Katz  J, Schein  O.  Routine preoperative medical testing for cataract surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;3:CD007293.
PubMed
37.
Blomquist  PH, Morales  ME, Tong  L, Ahn  C.  Risk factors for vitreous complications in resident-performed phacoemulsification surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2012;38(2):208-214.
PubMedArticle
38.
Hayashi  K, Manabe  S, Yoshimura  K, Kondo  H.  Corneal endothelial damage after cataract surgery in eyes with pseudoexfoliation syndrome. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2013;39(6):881-887.
PubMedArticle
39.
Kohnen  T.  Pseudoexfoliation: impact on cataract surgery and long-term intraocular lens position. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2010;36(8):1247-1248.
PubMedArticle
40.
Al-Mujaini  A, Wali  UK.  Visual outcome following extracapsular cataract extraction in mature cataracts with pseudoexfoliation syndrome: a retrospective study. Oman J Ophthalmol. 2013;6(1):23-26.
PubMedArticle
41.
Narendran  N, Jaycock  P, Johnston  RL,  et al.  The Cataract National Dataset electronic multicentre audit of 55,567 operations: risk stratification for posterior capsule rupture and vitreous loss. Eye (Lond). 2009;23(1):31-37.
PubMedArticle
42.
Panda  A, Krishna  SN, Dada  T.  Outcome of phacoemulsification in eyes with cataract and cornea opacity partially obscuring the pupillary area. Nepal J Ophthalmol. 2012;4(2):217-223.
PubMed
43.
Shingleton  BJ, Marvin  AC, Heier  JS,  et al.  Pseudoexfoliation: high risk factors for zonule weakness and concurrent vitrectomy during phacoemulsification. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2010;36(8):1261-1269.
PubMedArticle
44.
Sufi  AR, Singh  T, Mufti  AA, Rather  MH.  Outcome of phacoemulsification in patients with and without pseudoexfoliation syndrome in Kashmir. BMC Ophthalmol. 2012;12:13.
PubMedArticle
45.
Susić  N, Brajković  J, Susić  E, Kalauz-Surać  I.  Phacoemulsification in eyes with white cataract. Acta Clin Croat. 2010;49(3):343-345.
PubMed
46.
Gothwal  VK, Wright  TA, Lamoureux  EL, Khadka  J, McAlinden  C, Pesudovs  K.  Improvements in visual ability with first-eye, second-eye, and bilateral cataract surgery measured with the visual symptoms and quality of life questionnaire. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2011;37(7):1208-1216.
PubMedArticle
47.
Javitt  JC, Brenner  MH, Curbow  B, Legro  MW, Street  DA.  Outcomes of cataract surgery: improvement in visual acuity and subjective visual function after surgery in the first, second, and both eyes. Arch Ophthalmol. 1993;111(5):686-691.
PubMedArticle
48.
Wesolosky  JD, Rudnisky  CJ.  Relationship between cataract severity and socioeconomic status. Can J Ophthalmol. 2013;48(6):471-477.
PubMedArticle
49.
Zhang  X, Cotch  MF, Ryskulova  A,  et al.  Vision health disparities in the United States by race/ethnicity, education, and economic status: findings from two nationally representative surveys. Am J Ophthalmol. 2012;154(6)(suppl):S53-S62.e1.
PubMedArticle
50.
Kinard  K, Jarstad  A, Olson  RJ.  Correlation of visual quality with satisfaction and function in a normal cohort of pseudophakic patients. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2013;39(4):590-597.
PubMedArticle
51.
Sorenson  C, Drummond  M.  Improving medical device regulation: the United States and Europe in perspective. Milbank Q. 2014;92(1):114-150.
PubMedArticle
×