MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2911426771 · doi:10.1186/s13063-019-3199-5

Diabetic macular oedema and diode subthreshold micropulse laser (DIAMONDS): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

2019· article· en· W2911426771 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Noemi Lois, Evie Gardner, Norman Waugh, Augusto Azuara‐Blanco, Hema Mistry, Nachiketa Acharya, Tariq Aslam, Clare Bailey, Victor Chong, Louise Downey, Haralabos Eleftheriadis, Samia Fatum, Sheena George, Faruque Ghanchi, Markus Groppe, Robin Hamilton, Geeta Menon, Ahmed Saad, Sobha Sivaprasad, Marianne Shiew, David Steel, James Talks, Catherine Adams, Christina Campbell, Matthew Mills, Mike Clarke

Bibliographic record

VenueTrials · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRetinal Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHealth Technology Assessment ProgrammeSheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustZagazig UniversityQueen's UniversityNewcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustNational Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre at Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and UCL Institute of OphthalmologyJames Cook UniversityMoorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation TrustUniversity of OxfordUniversity of WarwickCentral Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustDepartment of Health and Social CareNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchOxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustNewcastle UniversityUniversity Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust
KeywordsMedicineVisual acuityDiabetic retinopathyOphthalmologyQuality of life (healthcare)OptometryClinical trialLaser treatmentVisual fieldDiabetes mellitusLaserInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In the UK, macular laser is the treatment of choice for people with diabetic macular oedema with central retinal subfield thickness (CST) < 400 μm, as per National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines. It remains unclear whether subthreshold micropulse laser is superior and should replace standard threshold laser for the treatment of eligible patients. METHODS: DIAMONDS is a pragmatic, multicentre, allocation-concealed, randomised, equivalence, double-masked clinical trial that aims to determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of subthreshold micropulse laser compared with standard threshold laser, for the treatment of diabetic macular oedema with CST < 400 μm. The primary outcome is the mean change in best-corrected visual acuity in the study eye from baseline to month 24 post treatment. Secondary outcomes (at 24 months) include change in binocular best corrected visual acuity; CST; mean deviation of the Humphrey 10-2 visual field; change in percentage of people meeting driving standards; European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions, National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire-25 and VisQoL scores; incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained; side effects; number of laser treatments and use of additional therapies. The primary statistical analysis will be per protocol rather than intention-to-treat analysis because the latter increases type I error in non-inferiority or equivalence trials. The difference between lasers for change in best-corrected visual acuity (using 95% CI) will be compared to the permitted maximum difference of five Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters. Linear and logistic regression models will be used to compare outcomes between treatment groups. A Markov-model-based cost-utility analysis will extend beyond the trial period to estimate longer-term cost-effectiveness. DISCUSSION: This trial will determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of subthreshold micropulse laser, when compared with standard threshold laser, for the treatment of diabetic macular oedema, the main cause of sight loss in people with diabetes mellitus. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials, ISRCTN17742985 . Registered on 19 May 2017 (retrospectively registered).

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.035
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.039
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.105
Threshold uncertainty score0.351

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0350.039
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0090.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.007
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0090.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1050.016

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.072
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.339 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTrialsSame topicRetinal Diseases and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207