ArticleBMJ open ophthalmology2019
Comparing the needs and preferences of patients with moderate and severe dry eye symptoms across four countries.
Article in BMJ open ophthalmology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prevalence and severity of dry eye disease among ophthalmologists, optometrists, and nurses: a cross-sectional questionnaire-based survey.International ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Utilising Narrative Medicine to Identify Key Factors Affecting Quality of Life in Dry Eye Disease: An Italian Multicentre Study.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2024Article
- The Efficacy and Safety of Rebamipide Ophthalmic Suspension (OPC-12759) in Patients with Dry Eye Disease: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Patient Medication Preferences for Managing Dry Eye Disease: The Importance of Medication Side Effects.The patient · 2022Article
- Living with presbyopia: experiences from a virtual roundtable dialogue among impacted individuals and healthcare professionals.BMC ophthalmology · 2022Article
- Defining the needs and preferences of patients with dry eye disease.BMJ open ophthalmology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 5 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsUnderstanding patients' perspectives of their disease can inform drug development and treatment decisions. In this study, we compared the preferences and needs of patients with moderate and severe dry eye symptoms from four different countries.
methodsA quantitative questionnaire was developed based on the self-explicated conjoint methodology and was administered to 160 patients with moderate or severe dry eye disease (DED) from Australia, Germany, UK and the USA.
resultsPatients with moderate dry eye symptoms ranked 'treatment satisfaction' as the most important aspect, whereas 'symptom bother' was more relevant for those in the severe group. Both the moderate and severe groups classified treatment effectiveness as the most important treatment attribute. This result was consistent across the four countries, although US patients gave significantly higher scores than patients from other countries (p<0.001). Furthermore, patients from Australia ranked 'treatment experience' as significantly more important than the concern of side effects, whereas respondents from Germany exhibited the opposite trend (p<0.05 for both). The health burden of DED is reflected in the average European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions 5-level (EQ-5D) scores of 0.764 and 0.658 for patients with moderate and severe disease, respectively.
conclusionOur results confirm that across the countries in the study, moderate and severe DED has a major impact on patients' quality of life and daily activities. By providing insight into the patient perspective of DED, our study helps identify outcomes that are important to patients and may guide future drug development and clinical decision-making.
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.