ArticleOphthalmology and therapy2023
Comparison of Literature Review, Social Media Listening, and Qualitative Interview Research Methods in Generating Patient-Reported Symptom and Functional Impact Concepts of Presbyopia.
Article in Ophthalmology and therapy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Extracting Quality of Life Information of Patients Diagnosed With Breast Cancer From Health Care Online Forum Posts: Data Feasibility Study.JMIR cancer · 2026Article
- Insights Into the Patient Experience of Hormone Therapy for Early Breast Cancer Treatment Using Patient Forum Discussions and Natural Language Processing.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2024Article
- Patient Experiences and Insights on Chronic Ocular Pain: Social Media Listening Study.JMIR formative research · 2024Article
- Content development for a new item-bank for measuring multifocal contact lens performance.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2024Article
- Artificial intelligence-enabled social media listening to inform early patient-focused drug development: perspectives on approaches and strategies.Frontiers in digital health · 2024Article
- Patient Perception and Self-Reported Outcomes with Presbyopia-Correcting Intraocular Lenses (PCIOLs): A Social Media Listening Study.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2024Article
- Patient and Caregiver Perceptions of Advanced Bladder Cancer Systemic Treatments: Infodemiology Study Based on Social Media Data.JMIR cancer · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTo compare the insights obtained about the experience of individuals with presbyopia (age-related impaired near vision) across three different sources of qualitative data: a structured targeted literature review, a social media listening (SML) review, and qualitative concept elicitation (CE) interviews with individuals with presbyopia and healthcare professionals (HCPs). The number of concepts identified, depth of data, cost and time implications, and value of the patient insights generated were explored and compared for each method.
methodsKeyword searches in bibliographic databases and review of abstracts identified 120 relevant publications; in-depth targeted literature review of the qualitative studies identified key symptoms/functioning concepts. SML was conducted using publicly accessible social media sources with focus on ophthalmologic diseases using a pre-defined search string. Relevant posts from individuals with presbyopia (n = 270) were analysed and key concepts identified. Semi-structured CE interviews were conducted with individuals with presbyopia (US n = 30, Germany n = 10, France n = 10), and HCPs (US = 3, France n = 2, Germany n = 1, Japan n = 1) who were experienced in treating presbyopia. Verbatim transcripts were coded using thematic analysis. A conceptual model summarised concepts identified across sources
resultsOut of the total of 158 concepts identified across the three sources, qualitative CE interviews yielded the highest number of concepts (n = 151/158, 96%), with SML yielding a third of the concepts (n = 51/158, 32%) and the literature review yielding the fewest concepts (n = 33/158, 21%). Qualitative CE interviews provided greater depth of data than SML and literature reviews. SML and literature reviews were less costly and quicker to run than qualitative CE interviews and also were less burdensome for participants.
conclusionQualitative CE interviews are considered the gold standard in providing greater depth of understanding of the patient experience, and more robust data. However, research requirements, budget, and available time should be considered when choosing the most appropriate research method. More time and cost-effective SML and literature review methods can be used to supplement qualitative CE interview data and provide early identification of measurement concepts. More research and regulatory guidance into less traditional qualitative methods, however, are needed to increase the value of SML and literature review data.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.