Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32685693›Full record

ReviewBMJ open ophthalmology2020

Patient-reported outcome measures in presbyopia: a literature review.

Garima Sharma, Sima Chiva-Razavi, Daniel Viriato, Christel Naujoks, Francesco Patalano, Sarah Bentley, Amy Findley, Chloe Johnson, Rob Arbuckle, James Wolffsohn

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMJ open ophthalmology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05510687 (A Randomised Controlled Trial on the Impact of Free Reading Glasses to Support Use of Smartphone Banking in Bangladesh Among Government Old Age Allowance and Widow Allowance Beneficiaries), which is not on this map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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.

NCT05510687 naactive not recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

A Randomised Controlled Trial on the Impact of Free Reading Glasses to Support Use of Smartphone Banking in Bangladesh Among Government Old Age Allowance and Widow Allowance Beneficiaries

TypeinterventionalSponsorQueen's University, BelfastRan2023 to 2026Enrolled571ConditionsPresbyopiaArmsGlasses to correct presbyopia
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 60 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Presbyopia: Current Perspectives and Prospects for Patients.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Posterior capsular opacification evaluation through contrast sensitivity defocus curves with two multifocal intraocular lenses of similar material.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2021
    Article
  16. Article
  17. 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 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Garima SharmaNovartis Healthcare, Hyderabad, India.ORCID 0000-0002-9075-0248
Sima Chiva-RazaviNovartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland.
Daniel ViriatoNovartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland.
Christel NaujoksNovartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland.
Francesco PatalanoNovartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland.
Sarah BentleyAdelphi Values Patient-Centered Outcomes, Bollington, UK.
Amy FindleyAdelphi Values Patient-Centered Outcomes, Bollington, UK.
Chloe JohnsonAdelphi Values Patient-Centered Outcomes, Bollington, UK.
Rob ArbuckleAdelphi Values Patient-Centered Outcomes, Bollington, UK.
James WolffsohnOptometry, Aston University, Birmingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4673-8927
Adelphi Group (United Kingdom) · GBNovartis (Switzerland) · CHAston University · GBNovartis (India) · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Presbyopia is the age-related loss of near-distance focusing ability. The aim of this study was to identify patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used in clinical trials and quality-of-life studies conducted in individuals with presbyopia and to assess their suitability for use in individuals with phakic presbyopia. Literature searches were performed in Medline and Embase up until October 2017. Specific search terms were used to identify presbyopia studies that included a PROM. All clinical trials with PROM-supported endpoints in presbyopia were identified on ClinicalTrials.gov. Further searches were conducted to retrieve articles documenting the development and psychometric evaluation of the PROMs identified. A total of 703 records were identified; 120 were selected for full-text review. Twenty-one clinical trials employed PROMs to support a primary or secondary endpoint. In total, 13 PROMs were identified; a further 23 publications pertaining to the development and validation of these measures were retrieved. Most PROMs were developed prior to release of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 2009 patient-reported outcome guidance and did not satisfy regulatory standards. The Near Activity Visual Questionnaire (NAVQ) was identified as the most appropriate for assessing near-vision functioning in presbyopia. While the NAVQ was developed in line with the FDA guidance, the items do not reflect changes in technology that have occurred since the questionnaire was developed in 2008 (eg, the increase in smartphone use), and the measure was not validated in a purely phakic presbyopia sample. Further research is ongoing to refine the NAVQ to support trial endpoints related to changes in near-vision functioning associated with phakic presbyopia.

Indexed as

eye (globe)field of vision

Identifiers

PMID32685693
PMCPMC7359053
OpenAlexW3041361691

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.