Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35024911›Full record

SynthesisGraefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie2022

Capturing the experiences of patients with inherited optic neuropathies: a systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and qualitative studies.

Benson S Chen, Tomasz Galus, Stephanie Archer, Valerija Tadić, Mike Horton, Konrad Pesudovs, Tasanee Braithwaite, Patrick Yu-Wai-Man

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Methodological quality of 100 recent systematic reviews of health-related outcome measurement instruments: an overview of reviews.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2024
    Review
  5. 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

8 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Benson S ChenJohn Van Geest Centre for Brain Repair and MRC Mitochondrial Biology Unit, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. bsc33@cam.ac.uk.
Tomasz GalusJohn Van Geest Centre for Brain Repair and MRC Mitochondrial Biology Unit, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Stephanie ArcherPrimary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Valerija TadićSchool of Human Sciences, University of Greenwich, London, UK.
Mike HortonPsychometric Laboratory for Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Konrad PesudovsSchool of Optometry and Vision Science, University of New South Wales, Kensington, Australia.
Tasanee BraithwaiteSchool of Life Course Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.
Patrick Yu-Wai-ManJohn Van Geest Centre for Brain Repair and MRC Mitochondrial Biology Unit, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
University of Cambridge · GBGuy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust · GBMoorfields Eye Hospital · GBUniversity of Greenwich · GBUniversity of Leeds · GBUNSW Sydney · AU

Funding

Medical Research Council G0701386Medical Research Council G1002570
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo identify and comprehensively evaluate studies capturing the experience of individuals affected by an inherited optic neuropathy (ION), focusing on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and qualitative studies where the health status and quality of life (QoL) of these individuals have been explored.

methodsSystematic review of five databases using a search strategy combining four concepts: (1) ION; (2) QoL and health status; (3) PROMs; and (4) qualitative research. Studies assessing the impact of ION on any QoL domain using a PROM or qualitative methodology were included and appraised, using criteria based on the COSMIN checklist (for PROM studies) and the CASP checklist (for qualitative studies).

resultsOf 1326 unique articles identified, six studies were included. Five PROMs were identified: Visual Function Index (VF-14); Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS); a novel graphical online assessment tool (NGOAT) for reporting emotional response to vision loss; a new PROM informed by the DSM-V Criteria for Major Depressive Disorder; and an interpersonal and career 'impact rating' PROM. The psychometric performance of included PROMs were poorly described. Qualitative studies found that vision loss resulted in psychosocial losses including loss of social and communication skills and loss of independence and freedom. Factors that modified the response to vision loss were also identified.

conclusionThe current PROMs used by individuals with ION have poor content coverage, primarily measuring activity limitation and emotional well-being, and insufficient reporting of psychometric performance. There is a need to develop a PROM for individuals ION to report their experiences of living with their condition.

Indexed as

Major Depressive DisorderOptic Nerve DiseasesHumansPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresQualitative ResearchQuality of LifeDominant optic atrophyLeber hereditary optic neuropathyPatient-reported outcome measureQuality of life

Identifiers

PMID35024911
PMCPMC9061690
OpenAlexW4206088752

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.