Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30790065›Full record

ReviewPharmaceutical research2019

Ophthalmic Drug Discovery and Development: Regulatory Aspects of Patient Focused Drug Development in Ophthalmology.

Cheryl L Rowe-Rendleman

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Pharmaceutical research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

1 author.

Cheryl L Rowe-RendlemanOphthalmic Medical and Research Consulting, Omar Consulting Group, LLC, Princeton Junction, NJ, 08550, USA. crrendleman@omarconsultants.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3024-2356

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In 2009, members of the ophthalmic research community held a joint meeting with members of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the National Eye Institute (NEI) to define and describe the types of patient-focused drug development (PFDD) tools used in ophthalmology. Since then numerous reports have been published which indicate that many of the questionnaires used for patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in ophthalmic clinical development lack rigor and reliability according to modern methods. In 2017, the FDA began development of a series of four methodological guidances for sponsors of clinical trials on the significance of PFDD. The new guidances delineate the FDA's thinking and commitments under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act to implement a more structured approach to the assessment of risks and benefits in clinical trials. In these guidances, the FDA provides steps that drug and device manufacturers should follow, not only to obtain, but also to develop reliable and validated tools that measure patients' experience in clinical trials. Subsequent efforts have resulted in the development and validation of PROs specifically for ophthalmology. The purpose of this paper is to assesses the PROs currently used in ophthalmology and to provide practical strategies for incorporating them into clinical trials.

Indexed as

Government RegulationPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresAdministration, OphthalmicClinical Trials as TopicDrug ApprovalDrug CompoundingDrug DevelopmentDrug DiscoveryEndpoint DeterminationEyeEye DiseasesHumansOcular AbsorptionOphthalmic SolutionsPatient SafetyPsychometricsOphthalmic Solutionsclinical trialsFDApatient-reported outcomesPROMsPROs

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.