ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2026
US Retina Specialists' Preferences for Geographic Atrophy Treatment.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- US Patients' Preferences for Geographic Atrophy Treatment.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Two complement inhibitors are US-approved for geographic atrophy (GA) and other treatments are in development. We present the first quantitative assessment of retina specialists' (RS) preferences for GA treatment. We explored how GA treatment characteristics affect RS' preferences, the trade-offs RS are willing to make between them, and whether this varies across patient profiles. Methods: US-based RS with ≥7 years of clinical experience and ≥50 patients with GA in the previous year selected their best and second-best treatment recommendations for specific patient profiles in 12 tasks showing two hypothetical treatment options and no treatment (best-best discrete choice experiment, BB-DCE). Treatment characteristics comprised lesion growth rate reduction, three treatment risks (mild-to-moderate uveitis, progression to wet age-related macular degeneration [AMD], and retinal vasculitis), and intravitreal injection frequency (every month, every other month, and one-time [gene therapy]). Patient profiles were defined by GA lesion location and visual acuity. Preferences were evaluated using a mixed-logit model. Relative importance of each characteristic and trade-offs were analyzed. Results: Of 166 RS, 83.1% had experience treating GA with complement inhibitors. Improving lesion growth rate reduction from 10% to 50% had the greatest impact (almost half of decision-making). Among risks, reducing the chance of progressing to wet AMD from 15% to 1% had the greatest impact (~20% of decision-making). All else equal, RS preferred a one-time over monthly injection(s). Risk tolerance increased with higher lesion growth rate reduction and, to a lesser extent, with less frequent injections; risk tolerance was highest when considering patients with foveal-threatening GA lesions. Conclusion: Across patient profiles, RS prioritized lesion growth rate reduction over risks; intravitreal injection frequency was the least important. However, RS were more risk-tolerant with patients with foveal-threatening lesions. RS would tolerate slightly higher risks for a one-time over monthly injection(s) if lesion growth rate reduction was comparable.
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.