ArticleGraefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie2024
Ocular drug delivery systems: glaucoma patient perceptions from a German university hospital eye clinic.
Article in Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Punctal and Intracanalicular Drug Delivery Systems for Ophthalmic Use: A Narrative Review of Technologies, Clinical Outcomes, and Critical Quality Attributes.Pharmaceutics · 2026Review
- Implants to Treat Glaucoma: Promising or Not?Drugs & aging · 2026Review
- [Modern corneal diagnostics as the key for the correct classification of the disease and optimal treatment decisions].Die Ophthalmologie · 2023Review
- A Survey on Patients' Opinions of Alternative Drug Delivery Systems for the Treatment of Glaucoma in South-South Nigeria.Middle East African journal of ophthalmologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to report on glaucoma patients' beliefs and illness perceptions and to investigate their opinion on ocular drug delivery devices (ODD).
methodsWe performed a cross-sectional study in a large tertiary-referral outpatient glaucoma clinic, with 102 patients. Validated anonymized questionnaires were used. We investigated the awareness and acceptance regarding ODD (contact lenses (CLs), punctal plugs (PPs), subconjunctival implants, anterior chamber (AC) injections, and drug-emitting stents) and looked at factors that could influence a patient's decision for having an ODD.
resultsSixty-three patients (61.8%) confirmed they would rather have ODD than keep their eye-drops (38.2%). The most important factors influencing their decision were effectiveness and long-lasting effect. A large proportion of patients reported a preference for CLs (48.0%), PPs (52.9%), or drug-emitting stents (44.1%). When comparing patients who preferred ODD (group-1) versus eye-drops (group-2), significantly more patients in group-1 were worried (p < 0.001) or felt disrupted (p < 0.001) by their use of eye-drops. A significantly greater share of patients in group-1 showed acceptance towards CLs (60.3% vs. 38.5%; p = 0.032), AC injections (38.1% vs. 12.8%, p = 0.006), or drug-emitting stents (54% vs. 28.2%, p = 0.023), whilst there were no significant differences regarding the acceptance of PPs (p = 0.363) or subconjunctival implants (p = 0.058).
conclusionODD for the treatment of glaucoma were broadly deemed acceptable by patients in this study. Effectiveness and long-lasting effect were the most important factors for a decision towards having an ODD. The majority of patients who preferred an ODD felt severely affected by their disease and were negatively influenced by their glaucoma medication intake.
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.