ArticleIndian journal of ophthalmology2017
Prognosis of different glaucomas seen at a tertiary center: A 10-year overview.
Article in Indian journal of ophthalmology, 2017. 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.
- Long-term perimetric stabilization with a management algorithm of set target intraocular pressure in different severities of primary angle-closure glaucoma.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2021Article
- Aspects of Tertiary Prevention in Patients with Primary Open Angle Glaucoma.Journal of personalized medicine · 2021Article
- Severity of visual field defects in primary congenital glaucoma and their risk factors.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2020Observational
- Simplifying "target" intraocular pressure for different stages of primary open-angle glaucoma and primary angle-closure glaucoma.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2018Review
- Post-phacoemulsification iris changes in eyes with glaucoma or glaucoma suspect status.PloS one · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThis study aims to determine treatment patterns, long-term intraocular pressure (IOP) and perimetric control in different glaucomas seen at a tertiary eye center. SETTINGS AND
designHospital-based, cross-sectional chart review of patients routinely following up at an outpatient glaucoma service.
methodsPatients with a follow-up of at least 10 years were evaluated. Their mean IOP, visual field (VF) status, and medications/surgery required at final assessment were noted. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation, and range) were used for all parameters.
resultsA total of 230 patients met our inclusion and exclusion criteria, 79 having ocular hypertension with open angles or primary angle closure (PAC), 35 primary open angle glaucoma (POAG), 50 PAC glaucoma (PACG), 20 primary congenital glaucoma (PCG), 46 secondary glaucoma patients. Ocular hypertensives with open angles showed progression to POAG in 3.7%, those with PAC in 5.2%, at a mean IOP of 17.3 ± 3.37 mmHg and 17.13 ± 4.41 mmHg, respectively. A progression on Humphrey Field Analyzer was seen in 11% of POAG and PACG eyes at a mean IOP of 13.50 ± 5.07 and 13.09 ± 3.95 mmHg, respectively. Fifteen percent of primary congenital glaucomas (PCGs) showed a glaucomatous VF defect after 10 years. In secondary glaucoma eyes, the mean IOP at last follow-up visit was 12.38 ± 3.74 mmHg, with progression noted in 7.69% of eyes.
conclusionThis study provides evidence that routine delivery of care can provide well controlled IOP in glaucomas, both primary and secondary, and the VF stabilized in about 90% of patients over a period of 10 years, with the currently available glaucoma medications and trabeculectomy.
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.