ArticleBMC primary care2026
Evaluation of primary care physicians' knowledge, attitudes, and awareness levels regarding age-related macular degeneration.
Article in BMC primary care, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAge-related macular degeneration (AMD) is the leading cause of irreversible vision loss in individuals over the age of 50. This study aims to evaluate the knowledge and awareness of primary care physicians in Türkiye regarding AMD and to examine the impact of professional characteristics on this awareness.
methodsThis is a cross-sectional and descriptive study conducted online between August 2025 and September 2025. The participants included general practitioners, family medicine residents, and family medicine specialists working across Türkiye, who were divided into three groups. Data were collected through a Google Forms questionnaire consisting of demographic characteristics and 35 closed-ended questions about AMD. A p-value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
resultsA total of 440 participants were included in the study, of whom 70.5% were male and 29.5% female, with a mean age of 38.8 ± 7.9 (26–68). Of the participants, 47% were general practitioners, 39.2% residents, and 13.8% specialists. While 86.0% of physicians knew the definition of AMD, deficiencies were identified regarding classification, risk factors, and access to treatment. Significant differences were observed among professional title groups in the following statements: “AMD is known as yellow spot disease among the public” (p = 0.016), “At what age range does AMD begin” (p = 0.013), “AMD is associated with iris color” (p < 0.001), “Invasive methods are used in the diagnosis of AMD” (p = 0.038), and “Anti-VEGF injections are covered by social security” (p = 0.003). Increased experience was associated with more accurate responses to “AMD is a progressive disease” (aOR = 1.14; p = 0.025). Gender had no significant effect (p > 0.05 for all items).
conclusionPrimary care physicians demonstrated a basic level of awareness, corresponding to the middle tertile of the scoring system. However, important knowledge gaps remain, particularly regarding risk factors and treatment processes. Expanding in-service training and integrating updated clinical guidelines into primary care are recommended for earlier diagnosis and appropriate referral.
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.