ArticleGene therapy2024
A multinational survey of potential participant perspectives on ocular gene therapy.
Article in Gene therapy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Adeno-Associated Virus Vectors in Retinal Gene Therapy: Challenges, Innovations, and Future Directions.Biomolecules · 2025Review
- The emerging need to manage patient expectations of haemophilia gene therapy amidst media hype in the UK.Therapeutic advances in rare diseaseArticle
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
Amidst rapid advancements in ocular gene therapy, understanding patient perspectives is crucial for shaping future treatment choices and research directions. This international cross-sectional survey evaluated knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions of ocular genetic therapies among potential recipients with inherited retinal diseases (IRDs). Survey instruments included the Attitudes to Gene Therapy-Eye (AGT-Eye), EQ-5D-5L, National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ-25), and Patient Attitudes to Clinical Trials (PACT-22) instruments. This study included 496 participant responses (89% adults with IRDs; 11% parents/guardians/carers) from 35 countries, with most from the United States of America (USA; 69%) and the United Kingdom (11%). Most participants (90%) indicated they would likely accept gene therapy if it was available, despite only 45% agreeing that they had good knowledge of gene therapy. The main sources of information were research registries (60% of participants) and the internet (61%). Compared to data from our recently published Australian national survey of people with IRDs (n = 694), USA respondents had higher knowledge of gene therapy outcomes, and Australian respondents indicated a higher perceived value of gene therapy treatments. Addressing knowledge gaps regarding outcomes and financial implications will be central to ensuring informed consent, promoting shared decision-making, and the eventual clinical adoption of genetic therapies.
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.