Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42477117›Full record

ArticleDie Ophthalmologie2026

[From phase I-IV-Correctly understand and assess study designs in ophthalmology].

Kristina Pfau, Anja Deutsch, Robert Németh, Christine Fuhrmann, Frank G Holz

Abstract readEnglish Abstract
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Kristina PfauUniversitäts-Augenklinik Bonn, Universitätsklinikum Bonn, Bonn, Deutschland. Kristina.Pfau@ukbonn.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3642-3502
Anja DeutschUniversitäts-Augenklinik Bonn, Universitätsklinikum Bonn, Bonn, Deutschland.
Robert NémethInstitut für Medizinische Biometrie, Informatik und Epidemiologie (IMBIE), Universitätsklinikum Bonn, Bonn, Deutschland.
Christine FuhrmannClinical Study Core Unit, Study Center Bonn (SZB), University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Deutschland.
Frank G HolzUniversitäts-Augenklinik Bonn, Universitätsklinikum Bonn, Bonn, Deutschland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Clinical Trials as TopicEye DiseasesOphthalmologyResearch DesignBiomarkersEndpoint DeterminationEvidence-Based MedicineHumansBiomarkersBiomarkersClinical studiesEndpointsEvidence-based ophthalmologyStudy phase

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.