ArticleOphthalmology science2023
Characteristics of Design and Analysis of Ophthalmic Randomized Controlled Trials: A Review of Ophthalmic Papers 2020-2021.
Article in Ophthalmology science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic review of the study design and statistical practices in randomized controlled trials on myopia treatment (2019-2023).BMC ophthalmology · 2025Pooled it
- Comparison of immediate therapeutic effects of 3% diquafosol and 2% rebamipide in dry eye disease: a prospective, randomized, paired-eye trial.Scientific reports · 2026Trial
- A Comparison of Randomizing Either One Eye or Both Eyes in Clinical Trials for Stargardt Disease Type 1.Ophthalmology science · 2026Article
- Evaluation of Statistical Methods for Clustered Eye Data with Skewed Distribution.Ophthalmology science · 2026Article
- Real-Life Assessment of Multi-Pollutant Exposure and Its Impact on the Ocular Surface: The Bike-Eye Pilot Study on Urban Cyclists in Bologna.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Article
- Micropulse Laser Trabeculoplasty in Glaucoma: Efficacy and Safety in a Clinical Cohort.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
- Treatment allocation in ophthalmological randomised-control trials (TAO-RCT): A cross-sectional meta-research study.Eye (London, England) · 2025Article
- Electroconductivity of Saliva as a Diagnostic Tool for Dry Eye Disease: A Case-Control Study.Translational vision science & technology · 2025Article
- Eye Selection Criteria's Influence in the Value of Pituitary Macroadenoma Management Biomarkers: Preliminary Findings.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Tutorial on Biostatistics: Sample Size and Power Calculation for Ophthalmic Studies With Correlated Binary Eye Outcomes.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2024Article
- Using bilateral data in controls and patients with bilateral and unilateral pathology requires increased scrutiny.Journal of biomechanics · 2024Article
- Relative Telomere Length Is Associated with the Risk of Development and Severity of the Course of Age-Related Macular Degeneration in the Russian Population.International journal of molecular sciences · 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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the recent practice of design and statistical analysis of ophthalmic randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Design: Review of 96 ophthalmic RCTs. Methods: Two authors (R.D., G.S.Y.) reviewed primary result papers published from January 2020 through December 2021 in Main Outcome Measures: Characteristics of trial design and statistical analysis. Results: Among 96 RCTs, 50 (52%) used 1-eye design, 21 (22%) 2-eye design, 10 (10%) paired-eye design, and 15 (16%) subject design. In 31 trials of 2-eye design or paired-eye design, 18 (58%) trials had suboptimal analysis of data from both eyes by analyzing data from 1 eye (n = 10), taking the average of 2 eyes (n = 2), analyzing 2 eyes separately (n = 1), ignoring intereye correlation (n = 3), or not specifying how 2-eye data were analyzed (n = 2), and 13 trials (42%) properly adjusted the intereye correlation by using the mixed-effects model (n = 6), paired Conclusions: There are opportunities for improvement in the design and statistical analyses of ophthalmic trials, particularly in the aspects of adjustment for intereye correlation, missing data, and multiplicity. Continuing education in ophthalmology and vision research community may improve the quality of ophthalmic trials. Financial Disclosures: Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references.
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.