Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32355909›Full record

ArticleOphthalmology. Glaucoma

Prioritizing outcome preferences in patients with ocular hypertension and open-angle glaucoma using best-worst scaling.

Jimmy T Le, Amanda K Bicket, Ellen M Janssen, Davinder Grover, Sunita Radhakrishnan, Steven Vold, Michelle E Tarver, Malvina Eydelman, John F P Bridges, Tianjing Li

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ophthalmology. Glaucoma. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 26% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. US Retina Specialists' Preferences for Geographic Atrophy Treatment.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026
    Article
  5. US Patients' Preferences for Geographic Atrophy Treatment.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. 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

10 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Jimmy T LeDepartment of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Amanda K BicketDepartment of Ophthalmology, Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Ellen M JanssenDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Davinder GroverGlaucoma Associates of Texas, Dallas, Texas, USA.
Sunita RadhakrishnanGlaucoma Research and Education Group, Glaucoma Center of San Francisco and, San Francisco, California, USA.
Steven VoldVold Vision, PLLC, Fayetteville, Arkansas, USA.
Michelle E TarverDepartments of Biomedical Informatics and Surgery, Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, Ohio, USA.
Malvina EydelmanOffice of the Center Director, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, United States Food and Drug Administration, White Oak, Maryland, USA.
John F P BridgesDivision of Ophthalmic and Ear, Nose and Throat Devices, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, United States Food and Drug Administration, White Oak, Maryland, USA.
Tianjing LiDepartment of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Johns Hopkins University · USUnited States Food and Drug Administration · USGlaucoma Associates of Texas · USGlaucoma Research Foundation · USThe Ohio State University · US

Funding

EPIDEMIOLOGY AND BIOSTATISTICS OF AGINGT32AG000247 · NIA · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI Karen J. Bandeen-Roche · 1996 to 2026
$13.2M
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
FDA HHS U01 FD005942NEI NIH HHS UG1 EY020522NIA NIH HHS T32 AG000247
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: To quantify patients' preferences for glaucoma outcomes and use this information to prioritize outcomes that are important to patients. Design: A cross-sectional study using best-worst scaling object case (BWS). Participants: Two hundred seventy-four participants newly diagnosed with ocular hypertension or mild to moderate open angle glaucoma from three private practices and one academic medical center in the United States. Methods: We designed a preference-elicitation survey based on findings from 25 semi-structured, qualitative interviews with patients with glaucoma (reported elsewhere). The survey asked participants to rate the importance of 13 glaucoma outcomes on a Likert scale as a warm-up exercise followed by completion of 13 BWS tasks. For each task, we presented participants a subset of four outcomes from the possible thirteen, and participants chose the most important and least important outcome. Outcomes included in the survey pertain to maintaining ability to perform vision-dependent activities of daily living (e.g., driving), maintaining visual function and perception (e.g., depth perception), minimizing need to take glaucoma drops, not experiencing ocular surface symptoms (e.g., red eyes, teary eyes), and having adequate control of intraocular pressure (IOP). We administered the survey online and analyzed response patterns using conditional logistic regression to determine the relative importance of different outcomes. Main outcome: Ordinal ranking of glaucoma outcomes based on preference weights. Results: Between September 1, 2017 and February 28, 2018, we invited 1035 patients to complete our survey, among whom 274 (26%) responded. Most participants were older than 65 years of age (146/274, 53%) and currently on IOP-lowering drops (179/274, 65%). Participants identified that outcomes with the largest relative importance weight were having "adequate IOP control" and ability to "drive a car during the day," and the outcomes with the smallest relative importance weights were "maintaining appearance of the eye" and "reducing the number of IOP-lowering drops". Conclusions: Determining the relative importance of glaucoma outcomes to patients can help researchers design studies that may better inform clinical and regulatory decision-making. Although IOP is an outcome that researchers often measure in glaucoma clinical trials, patients also prioritized outcomes related to the ability to perform vision-dependent activities such as driving.

Indexed as

Activities of Daily LivingAgedAntihypertensive AgentsCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleGlaucoma, Open-AngleHumansIntraocular PressureMaleMiddle AgedOcular HypertensionAntihypertensive Agents

Identifiers

PMID32355909
PMCPMC7192342
OpenAlexW2971703805

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.