Observational studyBMJ open2024
Priorities for health outcomes in glaucoma in an ethnically diverse UK cohort: an observational study.
Observational study in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Minimally invasive trabecular meshwork surgery for open-angle glaucoma.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2026Pooled it
- Equity in Uptake of NHS and Private Optometry Services in Wales by Age and Gender.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026Article
- Understanding Patient Preferences and Their Impact on Adherence to Glaucoma Therapy: A Multicenter Cross-Sectional Study.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2026Article
- Vision-related quality of life after phacoemulsification combined with goniosynechialysis and goniotomy in patients with primary angle-closure glaucoma and cataract.BMC ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Management of primary congenital glaucoma in the Indian population.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess whether patients from minority ethnic groups have different perceptions about the quality-of-life outcomes that matter most to them.
designCross-sectional observational study.
settingHigh volume eye centres serving the most ethnically diverse region in the UK, recruiting from July 2021 to February 2022.
participants511 patients with primary open-angle glaucoma and the predisease state of ocular hypertension.
main outcome measuresThe main outcome was participants' self-reported priorities for health outcomes.
resultsParticipants fell into one of four clusters with differing priorities for health outcomes, namely: (1) vision, (2) drop freedom, (3) intraocular pressure and (4) one-time treatment. Ethnicity was the strongest determinant of cluster membership after adjusting for potential confounders. Compared with white patients prioritising vision alone, the OR for black/black British patients was 7.31 (95% CI 3.43 to 15.57, p<0.001) for prioritising drop freedom; 5.95 (2.91 to 12.16, p<0.001) for intraocular pressure; and 2.99 (1.44 to 6.18, p=0.003) for one-time treatment. For Asian/Asian British patients, the OR was 3.17 (1.12 to 8.96, p=0.030) for prioritising intraocular pressure as highly as vision. Other ethnic minority groups also had higher ORs for prioritising health outcomes other than vision alone: 4.50 (1.03 to 19.63, p=0.045) for drop freedom and 5.37 (1.47 to 19.60, p=0.011) for intraocular pressure.
conclusionsEthnicity is strongly associated with differing perceptions about the health outcomes that matter. An individualised and ethnically inclusive approach is needed when selecting and evaluating treatments in clinical and research settings.
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.