Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33470946›Full record

ArticleJMIR research protocols2021

Effects of the Argus II Retinal Prosthesis System on the Quality of Life of Patients With Ultra-Low Vision Due to Retinitis Pigmentosa: Protocol for a Single-Arm, Mixed Methods Study.

Judith White, Laura Knight, Lyndon da Cruz, Paulo E Stanga, Hannah Patrick, Helen Powell, Lee Berry, Kathleen Withers, Grace Carolan-Rees, Timothy L Jackson

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR research protocols, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 44% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. An update on visual prosthesis.International journal of retina and vitreous · 2023
    Review
  3. Retinitis Pigmentosa: Current Clinical Management and Emerging Therapies.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Review
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.

Judith WhiteCedar, Cardiff & Vale University Health Board, Cardiff, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4557-3393
Laura KnightCedar, Cardiff & Vale University Health Board, Cardiff, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2726-8026
Lyndon da CruzNIHR Moorfields Eye Hospital, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7695-6354
Paulo E StangaLondon Vision Clinic, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3338-2055
Hannah PatrickNational Institute for Health and Care Excellence, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8674-9108
Helen PowellNational Institute for Health and Care Excellence, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7831-3600
Lee BerryNational Institute for Health and Care Excellence, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1183-9699
Kathleen WithersCedar, Cardiff & Vale University Health Board, Cardiff, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9514-2025
Grace Carolan-ReesCedar, Cardiff & Vale University Health Board, Cardiff, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1787-2123
Timothy L JacksonDepartment of Ophthalmology, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7618-1555
Cardiff and Vale University Health Board · GBNational Institute for Health and Care Excellence · GBKing's College London · GBMoorfields Eye Hospital · GBUniversity of Manchester · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRetinitis pigmentosa is an incurable, degenerative retinal condition causing progressive sight loss, significantly affecting patients' quality of life. The Argus II Retinal Prosthesis is a surgically implanted medical device that delivers electrical stimulation to the retina. It is intended to produce a form of artificial vision for blind people with severe-to-profound retinitis pigmentosa by stimulating the remaining viable retinal cells to induce visual perception. This study has been initiated by National Health Service England's Commissioning through Evaluation program and funded through the National Institute of Health Research of the United Kingdom.

objectiveThe aim of this study was to assess the effect of the Argus II device on patient's daily activities and quality of life.

methodsThis protocol is a prospective, single-arm, open-label, mixed methods study on 10 consecutive participants receiving the Argus II device. The patient representatives played an integral role in the design of this study. Eligibility criteria include ultra-low vision in both eyes as a result of end-stage retinitis pigmentosa and a willingness and capacity to complete the postimplantation rehabilitation program. Participants will be interviewed by independent researchers at baseline and 12 months later by using a semistructured, in-depth approach, alongside validated questionnaires (Impact of Vision Impairment-Very Low Vision, 5-level EuroQoL-5 dimensions scale, EuroQoL-visual analog scale, and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale) and a bespoke device-related questionnaire, which includes questions about users' experiences with the procedure, the device, and rehabilitation. The effect of the device on patients' functional vision and activities of daily living will be assessed by vision rehabilitation specialists using a set of tests measured on an ordinal scale (eg, ability to locate objects and avoid obstacles). Clinical outcomes include full-field stimulus light threshold, square localization, direction of motion, grating visual acuity, Landolt-C, procedural success, and adverse events. Qualitative and quantitative outcomes will be linked in a single database to enable individual participant measures to be considered in toto, comparing baseline to the final review.

resultsThis study was approved by the local ethics committee on April 24, 2019 (London-Camberwell St. Giles Research Ethics Committee, reference 19/LO/0429). It has also been approved by the Health Research Authority and Health and Care Research Wales. At the time of protocol writing, Argus II was available for use in the United Kingdom; however, the manufacturer recently withdrew the Argus II device from sale in the United Kingdom. Therefore, the study is not going ahead at this time.

conclusionsThe mixed methods approach provides a rich and in-depth assessment of the effect of the device on participants' quality of life. Despite the work not going ahead, the publication of this publicly funded protocol is important for researchers planning similar work. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/17436.

Indexed as

artificial visionfunctional visionlow visionpatient-reported outcomesqualitative methodsquality of lifeultra-low visionvisual functionvisual function questionnaire

Identifiers

PMID33470946
PMCPMC7857949
OpenAlexW3100705485

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.