Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40920290›Full record

ArticleAdvances in therapy2025

Patient Preferences and Understanding of Glaucoma Treatment: A Nationwide Survey by the French Glaucoma Society.

Paul Bastelica, Antoine Labbe, Marwan Sahyoun, Christophe Baudouin, Cédric Lamirel, Muriel Poli, Jean-Paul Renard, Antoine Rousseau, Cédric Schweitzer, Florent Aptel

Abstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Advances in therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

10 authors.

Paul BastelicaDepartment of Ophthalmology III, Quinze-Vingts National Ophthalmology Hospital, IHU FOReSight, INSERM-DGOS CIC 1423, 75012, Paris, France. pbastelica@15-20.fr.
Antoine LabbeDepartment of Ophthalmology III, Quinze-Vingts National Ophthalmology Hospital, IHU FOReSight, INSERM-DGOS CIC 1423, 75012, Paris, France.
Marwan SahyounHorus Pharma, 06200, Nice, France.
Christophe BaudouinDepartment of Ophthalmology III, Quinze-Vingts National Ophthalmology Hospital, IHU FOReSight, INSERM-DGOS CIC 1423, 75012, Paris, France.
Cédric LamirelDepartment of Ophthalmology, Hôpital Fondation Adolphe de Rothschild, 75019, Paris, France.
Muriel PoliCentre Ophtalmologique Pôle Vision, Clinique du Val d'Ouest, 69130, Ecully, France.
Jean-Paul RenardOphthalmologic Center Breteuil, 75007, Paris, France.
Antoine RousseauDepartment of Ophthalmology III, Quinze-Vingts National Ophthalmology Hospital, IHU FOReSight, INSERM-DGOS CIC 1423, 75012, Paris, France.
Cédric SchweitzerDepartment of Ophthalmology, CHU Bordeaux, 33000, Bordeaux, France.
Florent AptelCentre d'Ophtalmologie Visis, 66000, Perpignan, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionGlaucoma treatment predominantly involves the use of topical anti-glaucoma eye drops, with patient adherence influenced by individual preferences. This study aimed to assess these preferences and highlight the importance of personalized treatment approaches among ophthalmologists.

methodsThis French multicenter, cross-sectional study involved 21 ophthalmologists-members of the Board of Directors of the French Society of Glaucoma-from both public and private practices, who distributed a standardized questionnaire to their patients with glaucoma. The questionnaire collected data on demographics, treatment-related experiences, patient preferences, and the prioritization of six treatment criteria: cost, efficacy, dosing frequency, side effects, environmental impact, and ease of use.

resultsA total of 798 patients with glaucoma participated. There was no strong preference between multi-dose bottles and single-dose units (32.0% vs. 37.4%, respectively, with 29.2% of patients showing no preference). Side effects were reported by 31.8% of patients, and the use of artificial tears was significantly higher among those with longer treatment durations (31.3% for ≤ 2 years vs. 65.6% for > 20 years, p = 0.001). Notably, 63% of patients were unaware that their eye drops could contain preservatives. Regarding generics, 29.9% of patients had previously used one, while only 25.6% were willing to switch from their prescribed brand to a generic equivalent. Adherence was suboptimal, with only 66.2% of patients reporting being compliant. Younger age (p < 0.001) and lack of awareness about preservatives (p < 0.001) were significantly associated with non-adherence. When ranking treatment criteria, patients prioritized efficacy, followed by side effects, ease of use, cost, and environmental impact.

conclusionThis nationwide survey conducted by the French Glaucoma Society underscores the diversity of patient preferences and the critical need for personalized glaucoma care. A substantial proportion of patients feels insufficiently informed about preservatives and generics, which may negatively impact adherence. Enhanced patient education and individualized treatment strategies are essential for improving outcomes.

Indexed as

Antihypertensive AgentsGlaucomaPatient PreferenceAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleFranceHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansMaleMedication AdherenceMiddle AgedOphthalmic SolutionsSurveys and QuestionnairesAntihypertensive AgentsOphthalmic SolutionsAdherenceAnti-glaucoma eye dropsGlaucomaPackagingPatient preferences

Identifiers

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.