Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31772384›Full record

ReviewEye (London, England)2020

Patient-reported outcomes measures and patient preferences for minimally invasive glaucoma surgical devices.

Tianjing Li, Jimmy T Le, Ronald D Hays, Qi N Cui, Malvina Eydelman, George Spaeth, Michelle E Tarver, Kuldev Singh

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Eye (London, England), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. US Retina Specialists' Preferences for Geographic Atrophy Treatment.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026
    Article
  6. US Patients' Preferences for Geographic Atrophy Treatment.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

8 authors.

Tianjing LiDepartment of Ophthalmology, School of Medicine, University of Colorado Denver, Aurora, CO, USA. tianjing.li@cuanschutz.edu.
Jimmy T LeDepartment of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Ronald D HaysDepartment of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Qi N CuiScheie Eye Institute, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Malvina EydelmanOffice of Ophthalmic, Anesthesia, Respiratory, ENT and Dental Devices, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, United States Food and Drug Administration, White Oak, MD, USA.
George SpaethWills Eye Hospital, Sidney Kimmel School of Medicine, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Michelle E TarverOffice of Strategic Partnerships and Technology Innovation, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, United States Food and Drug Administration, White Oak, MD, USA.
Kuldev SinghStanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.

Funding

UCSF-Stanford Center of Excellence in Regulatory Science and InnovationU01FD005978 · FDA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI ALTMAN, RUSS BIAGIO, GIACOMINI, KATHLEEN M · 2016 to 2025
$34.5M
Maximizing Use of High-Quality Evidence in Eye Care: Cochrane Eyes and Vision US ProjectUG1EY020522 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER · PI Tianjing Li · 2017 to 2026
$10.1M
UCSF-Stanford Center of Excellence in Regulatory Science and InnovationU01FD004979 · FDA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI ALTMAN, RUSS BIAGIO, GIACOMINI, KATHLEEN M · 2014 to 2016
$5.4M
Mitochondrial Respiratory Chain Dysfunction in Primary Open Angle GlaucomaK08EY029765 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI CUI, QI N · 2019 to 2021
$731k
FDA HHS U01 FD004979FDA HHS U01 FD005942FDA HHS U01 FD005978NEI NIH HHS K08 EY029765NEI NIH HHS L30 EY029353NEI NIH HHS UG1 EY020522
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMany therapeutic options are available to glaucoma patients. One recent therapeutic option is minimally invasive glaucoma surgical (MIGS) devices. It is unclear how patients view different treatments and which patient-reported outcomes would be most relevant in patients with mild to moderate glaucoma. We developed a questionnaire for patients eligible for MIGS devices and a patient preference study to examine the value patients place on certain outcomes associated with glaucoma and its therapies.

objectivesTo summarize the progress to date.

methodsQuestionnaire development: We drafted the questionnaire items based on input from one physician and four patient focus groups, and a review of the literature. We tested item clarity with six cognitive interviews. These items were further refined. Patient preference study: We identified important benefit and risk outcomes qualitatively using semi-structured, one-on-one interviews with patients who were eligible for MIGS devices. We then prioritized these outcomes quantitatively using best-worst scaling methods.

resultsQuestionnaire testing: Three concepts were deemed relevant for the questionnaire: functional limitations, symptoms, and psychosocial factors. We will evaluate the reliability and validity of the 52-item draft questionnaire in an upcoming field test. Patient preference study: We identified 13 outcomes that participants perceived as important. Outcomes with the largest relative importance weights were "adequate IOP control" and "drive a car during the day."

conclusionsPatients have the potential to steer clinical research towards outcomes that are important to them. Incorporating patients' perspectives into the MIGS device development and evaluation process may expedite innovation and availability of these devices.

Indexed as

GlaucomaPatient PreferenceHumansIntraocular PressurePatient Reported Outcome MeasuresReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID31772384
PMCPMC7002517

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.