Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20437244›Full record

Trial reportGraefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie2010

Comparison of the efficacy and tolerability of preservative-free and preservative-containing formulations of the dorzolamide/timolol fixed combination (COSOPT™) in patients with elevated intraocular pressure in a randomized clinical trial.

Arthur Shedden, Ingrid A Adamsons, Albert J Getson, Jean K Laurence, Christopher R Lines, David J Hewitt, Tony W Ho

Abstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Preservatives in glaucoma medication.The British journal of ophthalmology · 2018
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Arthur SheddenMerck Research Laboratories, 351 N. Sumneytown Pike, North Wales, PA 19454-1099, USA.
Ingrid A Adamsons
Albert J Getson
Jean K Laurence
Christopher R Lines
David J Hewitt
Tony W Ho
Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of preservative-free (PF) and preservative-containing (PC) formulations of the dorzolamide/timolol fixed combination (COSOPT™) in patients with elevated intraocular pressure (IOP).

methodsA parallel, randomized, double-masked study was conducted. After a 3-week run-in on timolol, patients with ocular hypertension, as confirmed by an IOP ≥22 mmHg, were randomized 1:1 to receive PF or PC dorzolamide/timolol twice daily for 12 weeks. IOP was measured at hour 0 (drug trough) and hour 2 (drug peak) at baseline (last day of 3-week timolol run-in), and weeks 2, 6 and 12.

resultsA total of 261 patients were randomized. Mean baseline IOPs were 23.7 mmHg for both treatments at hour 0 and 21.2 mmHg for PF dorzolamide/timolol and 21.4 mmHg for PC dorzolamide/timolol at hour 2. At all study time points (trough and peak at weeks 2, 6, and 12), the difference between treatments in mean change from baseline IOP was <0.5 mmHg. The 95% confidence intervals for the estimated treatment difference (PF minus PC) in mean change from baseline IOP at week 12 was -0.86 to 0.23 mmHg for trough (primary endpoint) and -0.39 to 0.67 mmHg for peak (secondary endpoint). The most common adverse events were ocular burning/stinging, reported by 16.0% and 21.5% of patients receiving PF and PC dorzolamide/timolol respectively, and taste perversion, reported by 3.1% and 5.4% of patients receiving PF and PC dorzolamide/timolol respectively.

conclusionsIn patients with elevated IOP, PF and PC dorzolamide/timolol were equivalent in efficacy for change in trough and peak IOP, and had generally similar tolerability.

Indexed as

Antihypertensive AgentsDouble-Blind MethodDrug CombinationsFemaleGlaucoma, Open-AngleHumansIntraocular PressureMaleMiddle AgedOcular HypertensionPreservatives, PharmaceuticalSulfonamidesThiophenesTimololTonometry, OcularTreatment OutcomeAntihypertensive Agentsdorzolamide-timolol combinationDrug CombinationsPreservatives, PharmaceuticalSulfonamidesThiophenesTimolol

Identifiers

PMID20437244
OpenAlexW2072870676

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.