ArticleWiener klinische Wochenschrift2017
Patient knowledge concerning age-related macular degeneration: an AMD questionnaire.
Article in Wiener klinische Wochenschrift, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Article
- Regular AREDS2 Supplement Use in Age-Related Macular Degeneration: Factors Associated with Supplementation, Medication Adherence, and Patient-Reported Barriers.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAge-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a disease with rising prevalence. This study evaluates patients' knowledge and the need for more patient information.
methods271 patients with AMD were asked to complete a questionnaire concerning their knowledge about AMD. 150 patients were interviewed by a physician and 121 patients completed the questionnaire on their own.
results79.4 % of patients had previous knowledge about AMD. Most patients, 97.3 %, got their information from physicians. 58 % of patients find their knowledge concerning AMD adequate. Only 23.9 % knew about aid organizations for patients with visual impairments. DISCUSSION: Though the majority of patients had good knowledge concerning AMD, there was a large percentage of patients who seemed to lack information. Physicians should actively ask their patients if they have any questions related to their disease. Medial focus on AMD and information about aid organizations could help patients to cope with their disease.
conclusionA large number of patients seemed to need additional information. We suggest that ophthalmologists provide general information concerning AMD to their patients every 3 to 5 years. Information about aid organizations specializing in visual impairment could also be provided. Well-informed patients would be better able to follow their physician's instructions and would have a better understanding of their disease, particularly for the sake of therapy.
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.