Trial reportDer Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft2016
[Preservative-free glaucoma treatment : Selection of the correct treatment in 1 min].
Trial report in Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Ocular Surface Disease and Glaucoma Medications: A Clinical Approach.Eye & contact lens · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe presence of preservatives in topical glaucoma treatments may impact ocular surface function and structure. For treatment to be effective, side effects need to be minimized, in order to promote compliance and allow continuation of therapy. Therefore, in daily clinical practice, it needs to be decided on an individual basis whether a preservative-free treatment is required.
objectiveThis study aimed to develop a questionnaire which helps to quickly and easily identify patients who require preservative-free treatment. MATERIALS AND
methodsA questionnaire was prepared to collect relevant clinical findings needed to make a therapeutic decision (preservative-free required? Yes/No). Moreover, a rating scheme was developed to enable efficient final assessment of the collected data. To check their practicability in daily clinical practice, both instruments were tested in 11 ophthalmological centers in Germany.
resultsThe questionnaire and rating scheme were easy to use, integrated efficiently into everyday routine, and performed in about 1 min. Data of 1150 glaucoma patients were collected and preservative-free eyedrops recommended for 586 (51 %). Parameters most frequently associated with such a recommendation were a reduced tear film break-up time of < 10 s (87.5 %) or marked corneal staining (65.5 %).
conclusionThe presented approach helps to decide within 1 min, in daily clinical practice, whether preservative-free glaucoma threatment should be recommended. Individualized therapy decisions can thus be made, allowing goal-oriented use of preservative-free antiglaucomatosa. This might help to promote compliance and lead to reduced progression of glaucoma.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26563361What 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.