ArticleDie Ophthalmologie2026
[From phase I-IV-Correctly understand and assess study designs in ophthalmology].
Article in Die Ophthalmologie, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
How reliable is the evidence for new forms of treatment in ophthalmology and what does each study phase actually demonstrate? Phases I-IV not only stand for different developmental stages but also particularly for different targets: from the first safety assessment and dosage results to the proof of efficacy and to data from treatment practice; however, especially in ophthalmology the assessment of clinical trials is particularly challenging. Bilaterality, invasive application routes, complex functional measurement and the increasing importance of imaging biomarkers make the planning, performance and interpretation difficult. In addition, there are discipline-specific sources of bias, due to the choice of the analytical unit, masking problems or the limited informative value of structural surrogate points with no clear functional relevance. The article shows how ophthalmological studies can be correctly classified and critically evaluated though all phases. The focus is on study design, choice of endpoints, regulatory context and typical methodological pitfalls. The aim is to provide a practical orientation for the clinical routine and to strengthen the foundation for evidence-based treatment decisions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42477117What 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.