ArticleOphthalmology and therapy2025
Clinical Trial Simulation in Diabetic Retinopathy: Insights from Patients and Site Staff.
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
introductionHigh patient burdens from diabetic retinopathy (DR)-associated vision loss and intravitreal therapy (IVT) support patient experience inclusion in DR trial designs. This trial simulation characterized patient and site staff opinions to improve future nonproliferative DR (NPDR) trial designs.
methodsBetween March 27 and May 31, 2023, survey data were collected from trial simulation participants. After a preread and trial design animation, study features were simulated followed by a 75-90-min web-assisted telephone interview. Patients with NPDR and trial site staff from the United States, United Kingdom, and Germany were included. The likelihood of patient participation and the challenges faced by site staff in conducting the simulated clinical trial at their study site were assessed using a 1-7 scale. Outcomes were evaluated via thematic analysis and descriptive statistics.
resultsTwenty-two patients aged 36-55 years and mostly female (59.1%), and 16 site staff were interviewed. Mean NPDR duration was 9.3 years; most patients (81.8%) had never participated in a clinical trial. Although eligibility criteria resembled other trials, site staff indicated that restrictive exclusion criteria of the trial simulation could limit recruitment and that endpoints did not match patients' goals, which mainly focused on saving vision. The proposed 4-5-h on-site visits and 72-week trial length were considered "too long" by 45.5% and 50.0% of patients, respectively. For the 1:2 sham or active treatment allocation ratio, responses were 40.9% neutral, 36.4% positive, and 22.7% negative. Some patients misunderstood that sham injections imitate actual injections, expressing concerns about adverse events. Patients reported IVT-related anxieties, particularly IVT-inexperienced patients. Mean patient trial participation interest score was 4.9/7; 62.5% of site staff were interested in conducting the trial. Some proposed adaptations were implemented in the trial protocol (e.g., offering patient/caregiver transportation).
conclusionsInsights gained from respondent feedback in this simulation may inform future DR clinical trial design, potentially enhancing recruitment rates and patient experience.
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.