Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28455280›Full record

ReviewThe British journal of ophthalmology2017

"The patient is speaking": discovering the patient voice in ophthalmology.

Samera Dean, Jonathan M Mathers, Melanie Calvert, Derek G Kyte, Dolores Conroy, Annie Folkard, Sue Southworth, Philip I Murray, Alastair K Denniston

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The British journal of ophthalmology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
7.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

40 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 101 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Evaluation of the test-retest and inter-mode comparability of the Impact of Vision Impairment questionnaire in people with chronic eye diseases.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Samera DeanHealth Education England (West Midlands), Birmingham, UK.
Jonathan M MathersInstitute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Melanie CalvertInstitute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Derek G KyteInstitute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Dolores ConroyFight for Sight, London, UK.
Annie FolkardBirdshot Uveitis Society, Birmingham, UK.
Sue SouthworthDepartment of Ophthalmology, University Hospitals Birmingham NHSFT, Birmingham, UK.
Philip I MurrayAcademic Unit of Ophthalmology, Institute of Inflammation and Ageing, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Alastair K DennistonCentre for Patient Reported Outcomes Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7849-0087
University of Birmingham · GBUniversity Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust · GBHealth Education England · GBSandwell & West Birmingham Hospitals NHS Trust · GB

Funding

Department of Health PDF-2016-09-009Medical Research Council G0600416
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Eye disease can be devastating. The most feared impact is sight loss, but in a number of ophthalmic conditions, there can be wide-ranging systemic, psychological, emotional and social effects of both the disease and its treatment. External tests of visual function, such as visual acuity, are inadequate to understand the overall impact of ophthalmic disease on a patient's functional vision or daily life. This can lead to a discordance between the patient's priorities and perspective on the one hand and the efforts of clinicians and other stakeholders on the other hand. In this review, we discuss how the patient is uniquely placed to understand the impact of the disease and can use that position to transform ophthalmic care at the individual and collective level, from research to care delivery. We highlight how the "patient voice" can contribute to key areas, including priority setting in the research agenda, communicating the wide-ranging impact of disease and its treatment as assessed through qualitative research, identifying the outcome measures that matter to the patient through core outcome set development and reporting these outcomes through appropriate patient-reported outcome measures. We also consider the increasing power of the patient voice on health institutions, ranging from broadcasting an individual's experience of care he/she has received to patient societies influencing future health policy. Finally, we reflect on the challenges that need to be overcome for the patient voice to increasingly influence and improve the delivery of eye care in the future.

Indexed as

OphthalmologyPatient Outcome AssessmentPhysician-Patient RelationsQualitative ResearchHumansmedicalPublic healthtreatmentVision

Identifiers

PMID28455280
PMCPMC5583687
OpenAlexW2608549037

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.