ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2025
Prioritising the Burden of Geographic Atrophy and Treatment Expectations: A Modified Nominal Group Technique Study with International Patient-Led Organisations.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 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
Aim: Geographic atrophy (GA), an advanced form of dry AMD, impacts over 5 million people globally and leads to progressive, irreversible vision loss. Current approaches to GA treatment aim to prevent and delay disease progression and preserve remaining vision. However, there is a debate on what constitutes a meaningful treatment outcome for patients. The aim of this study was to prioritise challenges associated with GA and desired treatment expectations from therapies using a modified Nominal Group Technique (NGT). Methods and Analysis: The study employed a modified nominal group technique (NGT), a widely used, validated, structured, facilitated group meeting to generate consensus. Representatives from patient-driven international research funding and support organizations were invited to participate. Two questions, one asking the impact of GA on patients and caregivers and another asking the treatment expectations of GA therapies were posed during the NGT session. Standard NGT methods were followed to generate top 10 challenges of living with GA and treatment expectation as perceived by the participants. Results: The group ranked loss of independence (score - 32/50), difficulty recognizing faces (score - 28/50), impairment in daily living activities (scores - 11 to 22/50), and mental health issues (scores - 19/50 - anxiety, 21/50 - depression) as the most significant challenges faced by people living with GA. The group also prioritised stability of vision (score - 47/50), ability to recognise faces (score - 27/50) and one time therapy (score - 19/50) as their top expectations from GA treatments. Conclusion: This study successfully used the NGT to prioritise challenges associated with GA and treatment expectation of GA therapies. The consensus results imply that meaningful progress in GA care will come from therapies that realistically aim to slow further vision loss, are convenient to use, and are delivered alongside psychosocial and low-vision support.
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.