Assessing the Quality of Published Surveys in Ophthalmology

ABSTRACT

Purpose

Surveys are an important research modality in ophthalmology, but their quality has not been rigorously assessed. This study evaluated the quality of published ophthalmic surveys.

Methods

Three survey methodologists, three senior ophthalmologists, and two research assistants developed a survey evaluation instrument focused on survey development and testing; sampling frame; response bias; results reporting; and ethics. Two investigators used the instrument to assess the quality of all ophthalmic surveys that were published between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2018; indexed in MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, and/or Web of Science; contained the search terms “ophthalmology” and “survey” or “questionnaire” in the title and/or abstract; and were available in English.

Results

The search identified 626 articles; 60 met the eligibility criteria and were assessed with the survey evaluation instrument. Most surveys (93%; 56/60) defined the study population; 48% (29/60) described how question items were chosen; 30% (18/60) provided the survey for review or described the questions in sufficient detail; 30% (18/60) were pre-tested or piloted; 25% (15/60) reported validity/clinical sensibility testing; 15% (9/60) described techniques used to assess non-response bias; and 63% (38/60) documented review by an institutional review board (IRB).

Conclusion

The quality of published ophthalmic surveys can be improved by focusing on survey development, pilot testing, non-response bias and institutional review board review. The survey evaluation instrument can help guide researchers in conducting quality ophthalmic surveys and assist journal editors in evaluating surveys submitted for publication.

KEYWORDS:

• Research quality
• ophthalmology survey
• clinical research
• survey development
• survey research

Disclosure of interest

The authors report no conflict of interest.

Disclaimer

The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the United States Department of Veterans Affairs or the United States government.

Supplementary material

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed here.