Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33912685›Full record

ArticleBMJ open ophthalmology2021

Questionnaire to Assess Life Impact of Treatment by Intravitreal Injections (QUALITII): Development of a patient-reported measure to assess treatment burden of repeat intravitreal injections.

Cynthia K McClard, Rui Wang, Victoria Windham, Jose Munoz, Samuel Gomez, Sagit Fried, Namrata Saroj, Carl Regillo, Charles Clifton Wykoff, Adriana M Strutt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open ophthalmology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Nonadherence to anti-VEGF intravitreal injections in patients with diabetic macular edema : The names of the authors.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2025
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. 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.

Cynthia K McClardOphthalmology, Dean McGee Eye Institute, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3122-0623
Rui WangOphthalmology, Penn State Health Milton S Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, Pennsylvania, USA.
Victoria WindhamNeurology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA.
Jose MunozRetina Consultants of Texas, Houston, Texas, USA.
Samuel GomezRetina Consultants of Texas, Houston, Texas, USA.
Sagit FriedBen Gurion University of the Negev, Beersheba, Israel.
Namrata SarojAll Eyes Consulting, LLC, New York, New York, USA.
Carl RegilloWills Eye Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Charles Clifton WykoffRetina Consultants of Texas, Retina Consultants of America; Blanton Eye Institute, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, Texas, USA.
Adriana M StruttNeurology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo understand patient burden of treatment of repeated intravitreal injections (IVI) in the management of exudative retinal diseases. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Participants were sampled from a large urban retina specialty practice in Houston, Texas, USA, based on history of ongoing receipt of IVI. The 50-item Questionnaire to Assess Life Impact of Treatment by Intravitreal Injections questionnaire was developed to evaluate the patient experience including discomfort, anxiety, inconvenience and satisfaction. Categorial principal components analysis (CATPCA) was performed to assess construct validity and internal consistency. A subset of these items was used to establish a measure of total treatment burden, referred to as the IVI Treatment Burden Score (TBS).

results142 patients participated in this study. CATPCA analysis revealed five dimensions of patient burden: disruption of normal routine or capacity, anxiety, frequency of visits, chronicity of disease and perceived treatment value or satisfaction. Together, these dimensions accounted for 67% of variance explained. Cronbach's alpha was 0.97. The most frequently cited cause of discomfort was the feeling after anaesthetic wore off. The most common source of anxiety was fear of injection and associated discomfort or pain. Regarding inconvenience, patients reported temporary postinjection debilitation, requiring an average of 8 hours for recovery per treatment. The most frequently identified sources of satisfaction were confidence in the provider or treatment and interactions with staff.

conclusionsUnderstanding and quantifying the patient burden associated with repeated IVI for exudative retinal diseases can reveal opportunities to improve delivery methods. The TBS could serve to inform strategies to maximise treatment adherence and optimise patient experiences.

Indexed as

neovascularisationretinatreatment medical

Identifiers

PMID33912685
PMCPMC8031709

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.