ArticlePatient preference and adherence2026
Perspectives of Healthcare Professionals on the Treatment Landscape of Ocular Redness.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Ocular redness (OR) is a common clinical presentation that can significantly impact patients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL), yet treatment options have historically been limited by side effects and efficacy concerns. Brimonidine tartrate 0.025% represents a newer therapeutic option, but real-world perspectives from healthcare professionals (HCPs) on its clinical utility remain understudied. Methods: A cross-sectional exploratory qualitative interview study was conducted with 18 ophthalmologists purposively recruited from a sponsor-acquired list. Participants had experience prescribing or recommending brimonidine tartrate 0.025% and were interviewed across Spain, Portugal, Poland, the United States, and Greece. Semi-structured interviews explored current treatment landscapes, unmet needs, and experiences with brimonidine tartrate 0.025%. Transcripts were analysed using qualitative content analysis. Results: Participants reported OR as highly prevalent in their practice, with dry eye disease being the most commonly cited underlying cause. HCPs described significant HRQoL impact on patients, including social embarrassment, workplace concerns, and emotional distress. Prior to brimonidine tartrate 0.025%, treatment options were limited, with traditional vasoconstrictors avoided due to rebound redness and tachyphylaxis. All participants reported brimonidine tartrate 0.025% as effective, with rapid onset and good tolerability. Key advantages included lack of rebound redness and suitability for various patient types. Conclusion: This study with brimonidine tartrate 0.025% prescribers found it addresses a significant unmet need in OR management, providing effective relief with improved safety profile compared to traditional options. However, emphasis on proper diagnosis and use remains crucial.
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.