ArticleOphthalmology and therapy2025
Clinical Trial Simulation in Geographic Atrophy: Patient, Caregiver, and Trial Site Staff Perspectives.
Article in Ophthalmology and therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
introductionThe perspectives of patients with geographic atrophy (GA) should be considered when planning new clinical trials to ensure that real-world patient needs are addressed. The purpose of this study was to explore the perspectives of patients, caregivers, and trial site staff on designing and planning a phase 2 clinical trial in GA.
methodsThis cross-sectional study included patients with GA and their caregivers, trial site staff, and investigators from Germany, the UK, and the USA. Participants were asked to spend 30 min reviewing a simulated trial design communicated as a simple video animation with a voiceover. Subsequently, a 90-min web-assisted telephone interview and survey was conducted to identify problems with the design of the simulated trial and explore potential solutions and improvements.
resultsPatients (n = 11), caregivers (n = 11), and site staff (n = 16) completed the survey after reviewing the simulated trial design. Survey responses suggested that study recruitment could be facilitated via widespread advertisement and by including a short washout period, i.e., the time period during which patients receive no medication prior to commencing the study drug to ensure that other treatments do not impact the study results. Survey suggestions for reducing the burden of trial participation included minimizing the number and frequency of trial visits, enabling assessments to be completed at home, and making the schedule of trial visits flexible. Appropriate investment in study center facilities was recommended. In addition, survey respondents proposed that providing transport could be highly beneficial, potentially enabling patients and caregivers to attend trial visits more easily.
conclusionsThis study provides valuable information on the viewpoints of patients, caregivers, and trial site staff regarding trial design. Accounting for these perspectives when designing future clinical trials may help ensure successful trial completion and promote positive perceptions of clinical research.
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.