ArticleJapanese journal of ophthalmology2014
Posture-induced changes in intraocular pressure: comparison of pseudoexfoliation glaucoma and primary open-angle glaucoma.
Article in Japanese journal of ophthalmology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The impact of body posture on intraocular pressure following medical and surgical treatment for glaucoma.International ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Error in measurement of intraocular pressure with the Icare and IcarePRO.International ophthalmology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe objective of this study was to evaluate and compare the IOP values in the sitting and supine positions in primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) and pseudoexfoliation glaucoma (PXG) patients. We also investigated possible relationships between the level of visual field damage and postural IOP change.
methodsTwenty-nine patients with POAG and 32 patients with PXG were recruited to the study. An Icare PRO tonometer was used to measure IOP in the sitting and supine positions. Intraocular pressure in the sitting position was also measured with a Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT). Humphrey field analyzer 750 data taken within the previous 3 months were obtained and analyzed.
resultsThe mean difference between the GAT and the Icare PRO tonometer readings was 0.12 ± 0.8 mmHg, and the tonometers were in close agreement (r = 0.964; P < 0.0001). The mean Icare PRO IOP in the sitting position was 16.6 ± 3.3 mmHg in the POAG group and 14.9 ± 2.7 mmHg in the PXG group. The average rise was 1.7 ± 1.2 mmHg in the POAG group and 2.9 ± 1.9 mmHg in the PXG group. The difference in IOP between the sitting and supine positions was significant between the groups (P = 0.001). The ∆IOP was negatively correlated with both the mean deviation and the visual field index (P < 0.0001 for both). The ∆IOP and pattern standard deviation were positively correlated (P < 0.0001).
conclusionsA higher increase in IOP was observed in PXG patients from the sitting to the supine position than in POAG patients. Postural variation in IOP was found to be associated with the severity of visual field damage.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24627149What 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.