ArticleOphthalmology and therapy2024
Knowledge and Current Practices in Monogenic Uveitis: An International Survey by IUSG and AIDA Network.
Article in Ophthalmology and therapy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Irreversible Ocular and Systemic Damage in ROSAH Syndrome.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
22 authors at 16 institutions in 10 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThis study aims to explore awareness, knowledge, and diagnostic/therapeutic practices in monogenic uveitis (mU) among uveitis experts.
methodsThis is an explorative, cross-sectional survey study. An anonymous, semi-structured, electronic survey was delivered to uveitis experts from the Autoinflammatory Diseases Alliance (AIDA) Network and International Uveitis Study Group (IUSG). We included respondents answering ≥ 50% of the survey.
resultsSeventy-seven participants rated their knowledge of mU as proficient (3.9%), adequate (15.6%), sufficient (16.9%), or poor (63.6%). When asked about the first mU gene they thought of, 60.4% mentioned NOD2, 3.9% mentioned NLRP3 or MEFV, and 49.4% provided incorrect or no answers. Success rates in clinical scenarios varied from 15.6% to 55.8% and were higher for ophthalmologists working in multidisciplinary teams (p < 0.01). Genetic testing was ordered for suspected mU by 41.6% of physicians. The availability of molecular techniques did not significantly differ based on geography (p > 0.05). The public healthcare system ensured a higher percentage of tests prescribed were obtained by patients compared to private insurances (p < 0.00). In terms of disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitors were the most familiar to uveitis experts. The difficulties with off-label therapy procedures were the primary barrier to DMARDs prescription for patients with mU and correlated inversely with the obtained/prescribed drug ratio for interleukin-1 (p < 0.01) and interleukin-6 (p < 0.01) inhibitors.
conclusionsThis survey identifies proficiency areas, gaps, and opportunities for targeted improvements in patients care. The comprehensive outputs may inform evidence-based guidelines, empowering clinicians with standardized approaches, and drive an AIDA Network-IUSG unified effort to advance scientific knowledge and clinical practice.
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.