Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23055682›Full record

ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2012

A randomized crossover study comparing tafluprost 0.0015% with travoprost 0.004% in patients with normal-tension glaucoma [corrected].

Takanori Mizoguchi, Mineo Ozaki, Kazuhiko Unoki, Yoshinori Dake, Takahiko Eto, Miki Arai

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract readCase Reports
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. [Current aspects on the management of normal tension glaucoma].Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft · 2015
    Review
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

  • Erratum issued
5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Takanori MizoguchiMizoguchi Eye Clinic.
Mineo Ozaki
Kazuhiko Unoki
Yoshinori Dake
Takahiko Eto
Miki Arai
Minamiaoyama Eye Clinic · JPMiyata Eye Hospital · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeWe compared the intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering effect of tafluprost 0.0015% once daily with travoprost 0.004% once daily in Japanese patients with normal-tension glaucoma (NTG).

methodsOne hundred sixteen patients with NTG were randomized to use tafluprost 0.0015% or travoprost 0.004% once daily for 12 weeks, followed by a washout period of 4 weeks between switching medications. IOP was measured at baseline and 4, 8, and 12 weeks of each treatment period.

resultsNinety patients completed both treatment periods and had IOP data available for evaluation. In both groups, a significant decrease in IOP was observed for all measurement points compared with baseline values (P < 0.0001). There was no significant difference in IOP at each time point between the two groups. Both drugs were effective (defined as more than 10% IOP reduction) in 39 (43%) of 90 patients; only tafluprost was effective in 26 (29%) patients, and only travoprost was effective in 17 (19%) patients. Eight (9%) patients were nonresponders to both drugs.

conclusionsTafluprost and travoprost were equally effective in lowering IOP in patients with normal-tension glaucoma. However, patients with normal-tension glaucoma may vary in response to each medication.

Indexed as

intraocular pressure reductionnormal-tension glaucomarespondertafluprost 0.005%travoprost 0.004%

Identifiers

PMID23055682
PMCPMC3460714
OpenAlexW1574335791

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.