Oliver D. Schein

Bio: Oliver D. Schein is an academic researcher from Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. The author has contributed to research in topics: Cataract surgery & Population. The author has an hindex of 72, co-authored 191 publications receiving 19276 citations. Previous affiliations of Oliver D. Schein include University College London & Johns Hopkins University.

The epidemiology of dry eye disease: Report of the epidemiology subcommittee of the international Dry Eye WorkShop (2007)

Abstract: t hereportoftheepidemiologySubcommit - teeofthe � 2007� dryeyeWorkShopsummarizescurrent� knowledgeontheepidemiologyofdryeyedisease, �providing� prevalenceandincidencedatafromvariouspopulations.� It� stressestheneedtoexpandepidemiologicalstudiestoad- ditionalgeographicregions, � toincorporatemultipleraces� andethnicitiesinfuturestudies, �andtobuildaconsensus� ondryeyediagnosticcriteriaforepidemiologicalstudies.� recommendationsaremaderegardingseveralcharacteristics� ofdryeyequestionnairesthatmightbesuitableforusein� epidemiologicalstudiesandrandomizedcontrolledclinical� trials.�riskfactorsfordryeyeandmorbidityofthedisease� areidentified, �andtheimpactofdryeyediseaseonqualityof� lifeandvisualfunctionareoutlined. �Suggestionsaremadefor� furtherprospectiveresearchthatwouldleadtoimprovement� ofbotheyeandgeneralpublichealth.

The VF-14. An index of functional impairment in patients with cataract.

Abstract: Objective: To describe the development and the performance of a brief questionnaire designed to measure functional impairment caused by cataract (the VF-14). Design: Observational cross-sectional study. Patients were recruited between July 15 and December 15, 1991. Setting: Patients were recruited from the practices of 70 ophthalmologists, located in Columbus, Ohio (N=21), St Louis, Mo (N=26), and Houston, Tex (N=23). Patients: Seven hundred sixty-six patients undergoing cataract surgery for the first time. Main Outcome Measures: Preoperative best corrected visual acuity in each eye; scores on the VF-14, a new index of functional impairment in patients with cataract; patient reports of overall trouble and satisfaction with their vision; and scores on the Sickness Impact Profile, a measure of general health status. Results: The VF-14 has high internal consistency (Cronbach's α=.85) and correlates more strongly with the overall self-rating of the amount of trouble and satisfaction patients have with their vision than do several measures of visual acuity or the Sickness Impact Profile score. The VF-14 score is moderately correlated with visual acuity in the better eye. Conclusions: The VF-14 is a reliable and valid measure of functional impairment caused by cataract and provides information not conveyed by visual acuity or a general measure of health status.

Methodologies to diagnose and monitor dry eye disease: Report of the diagnostic methodology subcommittee of the international Dry Eye Workshop (2007)

Abstract: The role of the Diagnostic Methodology Subcommittee of the Dry Eye Workshop was 1) to identify tests used to screen, diagnose and monitor dry eye disease, 2) to establish criteria for test performance, and 3) to consider the utility of tests in a variety of clinical settings. The committee created a database of tests used to diagnose and monitor dry eye, each compiled by an expert in the field (rapporteur) and presented within a standard template. Development of the templates involved an iterative process between the Chairman of the subcommittee, the rapporteurs, and, at times, an additional group of expert reviewers. This process is ongoing. Each rapporteur was instructed on how to the complete a template, using a proforma template and an example of a completed template. Rapporteurs used the literature and other available sources as the basis for constructing their assigned template. The chairman of the subcommittee modifed the template to produce a standardized version and reviewed it with the rapporteur. The completed database will be searchable by an alphabetical list of test names, as well as by functional groupings, for instance, tests of aqueous dynamics, lipid functions, etc. The templates can be accessed on the website of the Tear Film and Ocular Surface Society (www.tearfilm.org). This report provides a general overview of the criteria applied in the development of tests for screening and diagnosis.

2013 ACC/AHA Guideline on the Assessment of Cardiovascular Risk

Abstract: Preamble and Transition to ACC/AHA Guidelines to Reduce Cardiovascular Risk S50 The goals of the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the American Heart Association (AHA) are to prevent cardiovascular diseases (CVD); improve the management of people who have these diseases through professional education and research; and develop guidelines, standards, and policies that promote optimal patient care and cardiovascular health. Toward these objectives, the ACC and AHA have collaborated with the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) and stakeholder and professional organizations to develop …

The definition and classification of dry eye disease: Report of the definition and classification subcommittee of the international Dry Eye WorkShop (2007)

Abstract: The aim of the DEWS Definition and Classification Subcommittee was to provide a contemporary definition of dry eye disease, supported within a comprehensive classification framework. A new definition of dry eye was developed to reflect current understanding of the disease, and the committee recommended a three-part classification system. The first part is etiopathogenic and illustrates the multiple causes of dry eye. The second is mechanistic and shows how each cause of dry eye may act through a common pathway. It is stressed that any form of dry eye can interact with and exacerbate other forms of dry eye, as part of a vicious circle. Finally, a scheme is presented, based on the severity of the dry eye disease, which is expected to provide a rational basis for therapy. These guidelines are not intended to override the clinical assessment and judgment of an expert clinician in individual cases, but they should prove helpful in the conduct of clinical practice and research.

Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies.

Abstract: OBJECTIVES: To consider methods and related evidence for evaluating bias in non-randomised intervention studies. DATA SOURCES: Systematic reviews and methodological papers were identified from a search of electronic databases; handsearches of key medical journals and contact with experts working in the field. New empirical studies were conducted using data from two large randomised clinical trials. METHODS: Three systematic reviews and new empirical investigations were conducted. The reviews considered, in regard to non-randomised studies, (1) the existing evidence of bias, (2) the content of quality assessment tools, (3) the ways that study quality has been assessed and addressed. (4) The empirical investigations were conducted generating non-randomised studies from two large, multicentre randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and selectively resampling trial participants according to allocated treatment, centre and period. RESULTS: In the systematic reviews, eight studies compared results of randomised and non-randomised studies across multiple interventions using meta-epidemiological techniques. A total of 194 tools were identified that could be or had been used to assess non-randomised studies. Sixty tools covered at least five of six pre-specified internal validity domains. Fourteen tools covered three of four core items of particular importance for non-randomised studies. Six tools were thought suitable for use in systematic reviews. Of 511 systematic reviews that included non-randomised studies, only 169 (33%) assessed study quality. Sixty-nine reviews investigated the impact of quality on study results in a quantitative manner. The new empirical studies estimated the bias associated with non-random allocation and found that the bias could lead to consistent over- or underestimations of treatment effects, also the bias increased variation in results for both historical and concurrent controls, owing to haphazard differences in case-mix between groups. The biases were large enough to lead studies falsely to conclude significant findings of benefit or harm. Four strategies for case-mix adjustment were evaluated: none adequately adjusted for bias in historically and concurrently controlled studies. Logistic regression on average increased bias. Propensity score methods performed better, but were not satisfactory in most situations. Detailed investigation revealed that adequate adjustment can only be achieved in the unrealistic situation when selection depends on a single factor. CONCLUSIONS: Results of non-randomised studies sometimes, but not always, differ from results of randomised studies of the same intervention. Non-randomised studies may still give seriously misleading results when treated and control groups appear similar in key prognostic factors. Standard methods of case-mix adjustment do not guarantee removal of bias. Residual confounding may be high even when good prognostic data are available, and in some situations adjusted results may appear more biased than unadjusted results. Although many quality assessment tools exist and have been used for appraising non-randomised studies, most omit key quality domains. Healthcare policies based upon non-randomised studies or systematic reviews of non-randomised studies may need re-evaluation if the uncertainty in the true evidence base was not fully appreciated when policies were made. The inability of case-mix adjustment methods to compensate for selection bias and our inability to identify non-randomised studies that are free of selection bias indicate that non-randomised studies should only be undertaken when RCTs are infeasible or unethical. Recommendations for further research include: applying the resampling methodology in other clinical areas to ascertain whether the biases described are typical; developing or refining existing quality assessment tools for non-randomised studies; investigating how quality assessments of non-randomised studies can be incorporated into reviews and the implications of individual quality features for interpretation of a review's results; examination of the reasons for the apparent failure of case-mix adjustment methods; and further evaluation of the role of the propensity score.

Research Methods in Health. Investigating health and health services

Abstract: This new edition of Ann Bowling's well-known and highly respected text has been thoroughly revised and updated to reflect key methodological developments in health research. It is a comprehensive, easy to read, guide to the range of methods used to study and evaluate health and health services. It describes the concepts and methods used by the main disciplines involved in health research, including: demography, epidemiology, health economics, psychology and sociology.The research methods described cover the assessment of health needs, morbidity and mortality trends and rates, costing health services, sampling for survey research, cross-sectional and longitudinal survey design, experimental methods and techniques of group assignment, questionnaire design, interviewing techniques, coding and analysis of quantitative data, methods and analysis of qualitative observational studies, and types of unstructured interviewing. With new material on topics such as cluster randomization, utility analyses, patients' preferences, and perception of risk, the text is aimed at students and researchers of health and health services. It has also been designed for health professionals and policy makers who have responsibility for applying research findings in practice, and who need to know how to judge the value of that research.