Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35513787›Full record

ArticleBMC ophthalmology2022

Living with presbyopia: experiences from a virtual roundtable dialogue among impacted individuals and healthcare professionals.

Mile Brujic, Paola Kruger, Jeff Todd, Elizabeth Barnes, Mark Wuttke, Flavia Perna, Jorge Aliò

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC ophthalmology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Presbyopia: Current Perspectives and Prospects for Patients.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Mile BrujicPremier Vision Group, Bowling Green, OH, USA.
Paola KrugerEUPATI, Rome, Italy.
Jeff ToddPrevent Blindness, Chicago, IL, USA.
Elizabeth BarnesNovartis AG, Basel, Switzerland.
Mark WuttkeNovartis AG, Basel, Switzerland.
Flavia PernaNovartis AG, Basel, Switzerland.
Jorge AliòUniversidad Miguel Hernández and Vissum Miranza, C/ Cabañal, 1, 03016, Alicante, Spain. jlalio@vissum.com.
Novartis (Switzerland) · CHPrevent Blindness · USUniversitat de Miguel Hernández d'Elx · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPresbyopia is a common progressive vision disorder characterised by an inability to focus on near objects. The emergence of newer treatment options in addition to spectacles or contact lenses highlights the importance of assessing patient/user preferences.

methodsPeople with presbyopia and healthcare professionals (HCPs) took part in a moderated, structured discussion of specific questions on a virtual advisory-board platform. The objective was to better understand unmet needs and the experience of living with the condition. Closed and open questions were included.

resultsNine individuals (age 40 to 70 years) with presbyopia participated, from Australia, China, France, Italy, Ireland, Japan and the US. One ophthalmologist and one optometrist represented the perspective of HCPs. Over two weeks, 621 posts were entered on the platform. There was widespread agreement that the often stated association between age and presbyopia was unfortunate. Some participants had developed presbyopia at 30-45 years of age. What is more, the association with age was seen as implying a natural process, reducing the incentive to treat. Instead there was a call for an action-oriented view of presbyopia as a condition which may be effectively treated in the future. All participants experienced dealing with presbyopia as burdensome, affecting quality of life to varying degrees. When considering new treatments, convenience was the most important factor. The option to administer drops when needed was considered favourable, but short-acting treatments may not reduce inconvenience compared with spectacles. Participants viewed a therapy that targets the underlying cause of the condition favourably compared with symptomatic treatment. Side effects would severely reduce the appeal of drops. For clinical trials in presbyopia, patient-reported outcomes should be mandatory and need adequately to capture quality of life. Studies in presbyopia must be designed to minimise the inconvenience to participants in order to counter the risk of high drop-out rates.

conclusionsThe interactive format provided insights into living with presbyopia, particularly the negative impact on quality of life, subjects' openness to new therapies, and the need to move away from considering the condition an unavoidable and intractable consequence of ageing.

Indexed as

Contact LensesPresbyopiaAdultAgedDelivery of Health CareEyeglassesHumansMiddle AgedQuality of LifeClinical trialsInteractive dialogueMode of actionPatient life experienceUnmet need

Identifiers

PMID35513787
PMCPMC9074271
OpenAlexW4229031415

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.