ArticleJournal of glaucoma2016
Squeeze Me if You Can: Variability in Force Requirements to Extract a Drop From Common Glaucoma Bottles.
Article in Journal of glaucoma, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Osmoprotectants, carboxymethylcellulose and hyaluronic acid multi-ingredient eye drop: a randomised controlled trial in moderate to severe dry eye.Eye (London, England) · 2017Trial
- Optimizing instilled drug delivery: a scoping review of microdrops in ophthalmology.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2025Article
- Effect of glaucoma on identification of bottle cap color in ophthalmic medications.International journal of ophthalmology · 2019Article
- Wide Variation of Squeezing Force and Dispensing Time Interval among Eyedropper Bottles.Journal of ophthalmology · 2019Article
- An objective assessment of the variability in number of drops per bottle of glaucoma medication.BMC ophthalmology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo determine the force requirements to dispense a single drop from commonly prescribed brand and generic topical glaucoma medications and correlate these findings with pinch strength in a representative patient population. PATIENTS AND
methodsFour bottles of each medication were tested: 2 in the vertical and 2 in the horizontal orientation. Bottles were housed in a customized force gauge apparatus designed to mimic ballpoint fingertip contact with a bottle tip. For all bottles, each of the first 10 dispensed drops was tested and then tests were performed in increments of 10 until the bottle was empty. For each tested drop, the maximum force and displacement were electronically measured. Concurrently, maximum pinch strength was measured on consecutive glaucoma patients.
resultsA total of 84 bottles from 21 bottle designs were tested. There was significant variability across the designs, with roughly a 7-fold (0.67 to 4.49 kgf) and 4-fold (0.81 to 3.00 kgf) difference in force requirements in the vertical and horizontal positions, respectively. Of 53 enrolled patients in the glaucoma clinic, the mean pinch strength was 5.05 (range, 1.23 to 10.4 kgf) and 4.82 (range, 1.47 to 10.67 kgf) kgf for the right and left hands, respectively.
conclusionsThere is statistically significant variability in the force required to squeeze a drop from common glaucoma medications, and a representative sampling of clinic patients suggests that many likely struggle with the force requirements of several bottle designs. These data further support standardization of topical glaucoma drug delivery and design.
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.