ArticlePharmacoepidemiology and drug safety2016
Using a patient-centered approach to benefit-harm assessment in treatment decision-making: a case study in uveitis.
Article in Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSynthesizing evidence from comparative effectiveness trials can be difficult because multiple outcomes of different importance are to be considered. The goal of this study was to demonstrate an approach to conducting quantitative benefit-harm assessment that considers patient preferences.
methodsWe conducted a benefit-harm assessment using data from the Multicenter Uveitis Steroid Treatment Trial that compared corticosteroid implant versus systemic corticosteroids and immunosuppression in non-infectious intermediate, posterior, and panuveitis. We focused on clinical outcomes considered important to patients, including visual acuity, development of cataracts/glaucoma, need for eye surgery, prescription-requiring hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and infections. Patient preferences elicited in a recent survey were then incorporated into our assessment of the benefit-harm balance.
resultsBenefit-harm metrics were calculated for each time point that summarized the numbers of outcomes, caused or prevented by implant therapy versus systemic therapy if 1000 patients were treated. The benefit-harm metric was -129 (95% confidence interval: -242 to -14), -317 (-436 to -196), -390 (-514 to -264), and -526 (-687 to -368) at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months follow up, respectively, suggesting that systemic therapy may have a better benefit-harm balance. However, measures of quality of life for patients treated with implant therapy were found to be better than patients treated with systemic therapy over the same time period.
conclusionsResults of benefit-harm assessment were different from the prospectively collected quality of life data during trial follow up. Future studies should explore the reasons for such discrepancies and the strength and weakness of each method to assess treatment benefits and harms.
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.