ArticleBMJ open ophthalmology2026
Using patient input to develop item banks to measure quality-of-life impact of vitreous floaters.
Article in BMJ open ophthalmology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsTo develop item banks for a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) specific to vitreous floaters using input from patients. We report on the content generation and item refinement, and compare the content of the newly-developed PROM with published literature.
methodsPotential PROM items (questions) were identified from two sources: 20 existing floaters-specific PROMs and two qualitative studies in patients with floaters. This initial item pool was evaluated with binning (grouping) and winnowing (reduction) to group the PROM items into quality-of-life domains. Patients with floaters provided feedback on the pilot PROM item banks in cognitive interviews. The Dutch PROM item banks were translated into English, Arabic and Turkish. Each step was guided by an expert panel consensus.
resultsThe initial item pool with potential PROM items consisted of 921 items. After three rounds of binning and winnowing, the item pool was reduced to 272 items. After 10 cognitive interviews, 19 items were changed, 8 were deleted and 8 were added. The final PROM item pool consists of 272 items across 12 item banks (quality-of-life domains): visual symptoms, ocular symptoms, general symptoms, activity limitations, driving, mobility issues, health concerns, economic impact, emotional well-being, social well-being, inconvenience and coping.
conclusionThe new floaters-specific PROM item banks included all 81 items from previous PROMs, supplemented with additional quality-of-life issues reported by people experiencing floaters (70.2%). The largest quality-of-life domains were 'health concerns' and 'inconvenience', emphasising the disease burden of experiencing vitreous floaters and patients' information needs. Item banking allows clinicians and researchers to choose what domains and items to use in their measurement. Additional quality-of-life issues identified in previously unstudied populations can be added and calibrated with the existing items. Future studies using the item banks can compare the quality-of-life impact of different clinical subgroups, and control for important confounders.
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.