ArticleEye (London, England)2023
Exploring patient acceptability of emerging intravitreal therapies for geographic atrophy: A mixed-methods study.
Article in Eye (London, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Risk Factors and Quality of Life in Patients With Geographic Atrophy, a Late Stage of Age-Related Macular Degeneration: Findings From the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.Journal of Korean medical science · 2026Article
- Patient Experiences of Intravitreal Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Injections for Age-Related Macular Degeneration: A Meta-Synthesis of Qualitative Studies.Patient preference and adherence · 2026Review
- Patient-Reported Importance of Functional Benefit in Geographic Atrophy.JAMA ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Clinical Trial Simulation in Geographic Atrophy: Patient, Caregiver, and Trial Site Staff Perspectives.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2025Article
- Implementing patient and public involvement (PPI) in eye research: reflections from developing a research study on Geographic Atrophy treatment acceptability.Research involvement and engagement · 2025Article
- Prioritising the Burden of Geographic Atrophy and Treatment Expectations: A Modified Nominal Group Technique Study with International Patient-Led Organisations.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Article
- Qualitative Factors Impacting Patients and Clinicians Regarding Intravitreal Injections for Retinal Disorders: A Scoping Review.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Review
- Association of sildenafil use with age-related macular degeneration: a retrospective cohort study.BMJ open ophthalmology · 2024Article
- Patient acceptability of intravitreal complement inhibitors in geographic atrophy (GA): protocol for a UK-based cross-sectional study.BMJ open · 2024Article
- PEGylated therapeutics in the clinic.Bioengineering & translational medicine · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesThe acceptability of emerging intravitreal therapies for patients with Geographic Atrophy (GA) is currently unknown. This study therefore aimed to investigate the extent to which regular intravitreal injections may be acceptable to GA patients. SUBJECTS/
methodsThirty UK-based individuals with GA secondary to age-related macular degeneration (AMD), recruited from two London-based hospitals, were interviewed in April-October 2021 regarding acceptability of new GA treatments. Participants responded to a structured questionnaire, as well as open-ended questions in a semi-structured interview. The Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA) informed framework analysis of the qualitative data.
resultsTwenty participants (67%) were female, and median (interquartile range (IQR)) age was 83 (78, 87) years. 37% of participants had foveal centre-involving GA, and better eye median (IQR) logMAR visual acuity was 0.30 (0.17, 0.58). Data suggested that 18 participants (60% (95% CI: 41-79%)) would accept the treatment, despite awareness of potential drawbacks. Eight participants (27% (95% CI: 10-43%) were ambivalent or undecided about treatment, and four (13%) (95% CI: 0-26%) would be unlikely to accept treatment. Reducing the frequency of injections from monthly to every other month increased the proportion of participants who considered the treatments acceptable. Conversely, factors limiting acceptability clustered around: the limited magnitude of treatment efficacy; concerns about side effects or the increased risk of neovascular AMD; and the logistical burden of regular clinic visits for intravitreal injections. Misunderstandings of potential benefits indicate the need for appropriately-designed patient education tools to support decision-making.
conclusionsOur study suggests a majority of participants would be positive about intravitreal treatment for GA, in spite of potential burdens.
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.