Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23702779›Full record

Trial reportInvestigative ophthalmology & visual science2013

Expert prior elicitation and Bayesian analysis of the Mycotic Ulcer Treatment Trial I.

Catherine Q Sun, N Venkatesh Prajna, Tiruvengada Krishnan, Jeena Mascarenhas, Revathi Rajaraman, Muthiah Srinivasan, Anita Raghavan, Kieran S O'Brien, Kathryn J Ray, Stephen D McLeod and 3 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase IRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Investigative ophthalmology & visual science, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT00996736 (Mycotic Ulcer Treatment Trial), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT00996736 phase3completednot on this map

Mycotic Ulcer Treatment Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of California, San FranciscoRan2010 to 2012Enrolled323ConditionsCorneal Ulcer, Eye Infections, FungalArmsNatamycin, Voriconazole
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Medical interventions for fungal keratitis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Prior Elicitation for Use in Clinical Trial Design and Analysis: A Literature Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Review
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Catherine Q SunFrancis I. Proctor Foundation, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.
N Venkatesh Prajna
Tiruvengada Krishnan
Jeena Mascarenhas
Revathi Rajaraman
Muthiah Srinivasan
Anita Raghavan
Kieran S O'Brien
Kathryn J Ray
Stephen D McLeod
Travis C Porco
Nisha R Acharya
Thomas M Lietman
Aravind Eye Hospital · INUniversity of California, San Francisco · USSan Francisco Foundation · US

Funding

Myocotic Ulcer Treatment TrialU10EY018573 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI LIETMAN, THOMAS M · 2009 to 2014
$3.7M
Predicting and Improving Clinical Outcomes for Bacterial KeratitisK23EY017897 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI ACHARYA, NISHA · 2007 to 2011
$1.1M
NEI NIH HHS K23 EY017897NEI NIH HHS U10 EY018573
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo perform a Bayesian analysis of the Mycotic Ulcer Treatment Trial I (MUTT I) using expert opinion as a prior belief.

methodsMUTT I was a randomized clinical trial comparing topical natamycin or voriconazole for treating filamentous fungal keratitis. A questionnaire elicited expert opinion on the best treatment of fungal keratitis before MUTT I results were available. A Bayesian analysis was performed using the questionnaire data as a prior belief and the MUTT I primary outcome (3-month visual acuity) by frequentist analysis as a likelihood.

resultsCorneal experts had a 41.1% prior belief that natamycin improved 3-month visual acuity compared with voriconazole. The Bayesian analysis found a 98.4% belief for natamycin treatment compared with voriconazole treatment for filamentous cases as a group (mean improvement 1.1 Snellen lines, 95% credible interval 0.1-2.1). The Bayesian analysis estimated a smaller treatment effect than the MUTT I frequentist analysis result of 1.8-line improvement with natamycin versus voriconazole (95% confidence interval 0.5-3.0, P = 0.006). For Fusarium cases, the posterior demonstrated a 99.7% belief for natamycin treatment, whereas non-Fusarium cases had a 57.3% belief.

conclusionsThe Bayesian analysis suggests that natamycin is superior to voriconazole when filamentous cases are analyzed as a group. Subgroup analysis of Fusarium cases found improvement with natamycin compared with voriconazole, whereas there was almost no difference between treatments for non-Fusarium cases. These results were consistent with, though smaller in effect size than, the MUTT I primary outcome by frequentist analysis. The accordance between analyses further validates the trial results. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00996736.).

Indexed as

Antifungal AgentsBayes TheoremCorneal UlcerEye Infections, FungalFusariosisHumansNatamycinPyrimidinesSurveys and QuestionnairesTriazolesVoriconazoleAntifungal AgentsNatamycinPyrimidinesTriazolesVoriconazoleBayesianclinical trialcorneal ulcerationfungal keratitisstatistics

Identifiers

PMID23702779
PMCPMC3684218
OpenAlexW2093971825

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.