Trial reportGraefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie2016
Comparison of preservative-free latanoprost and preservative-free bimatoprost in a multicenter, randomized, investigator-masked cross-over clinical trial, the SPORT trial.
Trial report in Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and safety of prostaglandin drugs for elevated intraocular pressure: a Bayesian network meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Efficacy and safety of netarsudil compared with prostaglandin-based therapies: a Bayesian network meta-analysis.International ophthalmology · 2026Review
- Preservative-Free Gel-Formulated Glaucoma Therapies: Learning from the Past, Looking to the Future.Advances in therapy · 2025Review
- Clinical Benefits of Preservative-Free Treatment for Glaucoma with a Focus on Preservative-Free Latanoprost.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2025Review
- From Eye Care to Hair Growth: Bimatoprost.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Intraocular Pressure Reduction Effect of 0.005% Latanoprost Eye Drops in a Hyaluronic Acid-Chitosan Nanoparticle Drug Delivery System in Albino Rabbits.Translational vision science & technology · 2021Article
- Dorzolamide/Timolol Fixed Combination: Learning from the Past and Looking Toward the Future.Advances in therapy · 2021Review
- Comparison of the effectiveness and safety of travoprost and latanoprost for the management of open-angle glaucoma given as an evening dose.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2020Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of Bimatoprost Unit Dose Preservative Free (BUDPF) and Latanoprost Unit Dose Preservative Free (LUDPF).
methodsA prospective, randomized, investigator-masked, cross-over comparison was used. Inclusion criteria were ocular hypertension (OHT) or open-angle glaucoma (OAG) with a maximum intraocular pressure (IOP) of 21 mmHg on a preserved prostaglandin monotherapy. After 6 weeks washout, patients were randomized to BUDPF or LUDPF for 3 months and then switched to the other treatment for 3 months. IOP curves were performed at baseline and after each treatment period. Statistical analysis was performed in a R programming environment. Linear mixed modeling was used to account for repeated measures on the same subject and clustering of observations from the same center. Safety outcomes included visual acuity, adverse events, slit-lamp biomicroscopy, ocular tolerability, and optic nerve assessment.
resultsAnalysis at 6 months (primary outcome) showed a 1.6 ± 0.5-mmHg difference in IOP values between LUDPF and BUDPF (p < 0.01). A mean intra-subject IOP difference of 0.9 ± 0.2 mmHg (LUDPF - BUDPF) was observed (p < 0.01).. Significant differences in IOP were observed for both drugs at 3 and at 6 months compared to baseline: -4,0 ± 0.5 mmHg for both BUDPF and LUDPF at 3 months (p < 0.01 for both drugs; p = 0.32 between the two drugs); -5.2 ± 0.5 and -3.4 ± 0.5 mmHg for BUDPF and LUDPF, respectively (both p < 0.01), at 6 months. Both drugs were tolerated well, the only statistically significant difference being lower hyperemia scores for LUDPF (albeit low for both drugs).
conclusionsThis study demonstrates a superior efficacy of BUDPF over LUDPF in lowering IOP. The results are consistent both in the parallel comparison between the two treatment groups at 6 months as well as in the intra-subject pressure comparison.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.