Trial reportInvestigative ophthalmology & visual science2015
Outcome Preferences in Patients With Noninfectious Uveitis: Results of a Best-Worst Scaling Study.
Trial report in Investigative ophthalmology & visual science, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT00132691 (Multicenter Uveitis Steroid Treatment), which is not on this map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Multicenter Uveitis Steroid Treatment (MUST) Trial
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Using Best-Worst Scaling to Investigate Preferences in Health Care.PharmacoEconomics · 2016Pooled it
- US Retina Specialists' Preferences for Geographic Atrophy Treatment.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
- US Patients' Preferences for Geographic Atrophy Treatment.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
- Article
- Using a patient-centered approach to benefit-harm assessment in treatment decision-making: a case study in uveitis.Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety · 2016Article
- Fingolimod versus interferon beta 1-a: Benefit-harm assessment approach based on TRANSFORMS individual patient data.Multiple sclerosis journal - experimental, translational and clinicalArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo estimate patient preferences regarding potential adverse outcomes of local versus systemic corticosteroid therapies for noninfectious uveitis by using a best-worst scaling (BWS) approach.
methodsLocal and systemic therapies are alternatives for noninfectious uveitis that have different potential adverse outcomes. Patients participating in the Multicenter Uveitis Steroid Treatment Trial Follow-up Study (MUST FS) and additional patients with a history of noninfectious uveitis treated at two academic medical centers (Johns Hopkins University and University of Pennsylvania) were surveyed about their preferences regarding six adverse outcomes deemed important to patients. Using "case 1" BWS, patients were asked to repeatedly select the most and least worrying from a list of outcomes (in the survey three outcomes per task).
resultsEighty-two patients in the MUST FS and 100 patients treated at the academic medical centers completed the survey. According to BWS, patients were more likely to select vision not meeting the requirement for driving (individual BWS score: median = 3, interquartile range, 0-5), development of glaucoma (2, 1-4), and needing eye surgery (1, 0-3) as the most worrying outcomes as compared to needing medicine for high blood pressure/cholesterol (-2, -4 to 0), development of cataracts (-2, -3 to -1), or infection (sinusitis) (-3, -5 to 0). Larger BWS scores indicated the outcomes were more worrying to patients.
conclusionsPatients with noninfectious uveitis considered impaired vision, development of glaucoma, and need for eye surgery worrying adverse outcomes, which suggests that it is especially desirable to avoid these outcomes if possible. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00132691.)
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.