ArticleBMJ open2017
Healthcare experiences of patients with age-related macular degeneration: have things improved? Cross-sectional survey responses of Macular Society members in 2013 compared with 1999.
Article in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Article
- Systematic review of eyecare Patient-Reported Experience Measures (PREMs) following COSMIN guidelines.Eye (London, England) · 2026Review
- A thematic analysis of patients' experiences of receiving treatment for Neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD).Eye (London, England) · 2025Article
- A qualitative exploration of Australian eyecare professional perspectives on Age-Related Macular Degeneration (AMD) care.PloS one · 2020Article
- Patient Perspectives in Geographic Atrophy (GA): Exploratory Qualitative Research to Understand the Impact of GA for Patients and Their Families.The British and Irish orthoptic journal · 2019Article
- Patient-reported reasons for delay in diagnosis of age-related macular degeneration: a national survey.BMJ open ophthalmology · 2019Article
- Optimizing Anti-VEGF Treatment Outcomes for Patients with Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate healthcare experiences of patients with age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and determine whether a previous survey and Royal College of Ophthalmologists (RCOphth) management guidelines brought improvements.
designCross-sectional survey of Macular Society members in 2013 compared with previous 1999 survey.
settingUK Postal Questionnaires.
participants1169 respondents in 2013 (1187 in 1999).
interventionPublication of 1999 survey results (2002), and RCOphth AMD guidelines (2009).
main outcome measuresRespondents answered questions about experiences at diagnosis. Five questions were replicated from the 1999 survey for direct comparison in the 2013 survey which included additional questions based on 2009 RCOphth recommendations for information and support provision for patients with AMD.
resultsMost 2013 survey respondents were given the name of their macular condition (91%), felt the healthcare professional was interested in them (71%) and were satisfied overall with the diagnostic consultation (76%). These outcomes show significant improvement since 1999. Within the 2013 sample, multivariable analyses showed gradual trends of improvement over time in: provision of written information, Macular Society information and receiving appropriate help, support and advice at diagnosis. Only overall satisfaction with the diagnostic consultation (but not the other nine areas of information and support provision studied) significantly improved in the time after publication of the RCOphth 2009 guidelines. There were no significant improvements associated with the publication of the 1999 survey results. Low information and support provision remained, for example, 44% of respondents diagnosed after the RCOphth 2009 guidelines reported not receiving information on what to do if vision deteriorated. Lack of such information at diagnosis was significantly associated with registration as sight impaired (p<0.01). Reports of general practitioner (GP) knowledge of AMD remained low: 39% reported their GP was 'not at all well informed'. The 2013 respondents reported lower levels of help and support from GPs than 1999 respondents (p<0.001).
conclusionsPatients diagnosed with AMD after 1999 (vs before 1999) reported better experiences at diagnostic consultation. However, information and support provision at diagnosis, and satisfaction with GPs remained low.
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.