ReviewPatient preference and adherence2025
Patient Preference on Age-Related Macular Degeneration Treatment: A Systematic Review.
Review in Patient preference and adherence, 2025. 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.
- OphthoEvidence: a model for rapid and trustworthy ophthalmology guidelines.Eye (London, England) · 2026Article
- Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Patient preference is important in decision-making processes, such as drug approval and price determination. We conducted a systematic review regarding the preference of age-related macular degeneration (AMD) treatment. Patients and Methods: We searched for articles on patient preferences for AMD treatment published between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2023 using EMBASE, Google scholar, MEDLINE, and PLOS. Results: Seven studies were included in this systematic review. Conjoint analysis was used in all seven trials, of which six were Discrete Choice Experiments and one was a ranking. These studies were conducted in Germany, United States, United Kingdom, Japan, Spain, and Singapore. Six studies focused on patients with neovascular AMD (nAMD, also called wet AMD, ie, wAMD), and one focused on patients with nAMD or diabetic macular edema. The attributes of the treatments used in these seven studies were efficacy, safety, convenience, and cost. Overall, the relative importance of attributes related to efficacy and safety were the highest, followed by those related to convenience and costs. The convenience and cost attributes were almost equal. Conclusion: Although the definitions of treatment attributes differed among the studies, patients with nAMD considered efficacy and safety to be the most important. The results of several studies suggest that patient preferences may be affected by patient demographics, such as sex. Although there are currently only a few preference studies on patients with AMD, it is necessary to continue conducting studies to understand the trends in patient preferences according to patient demographics.
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.