ArticleBMC ophthalmology2017
An objective assessment of the variability in number of drops per bottle of glaucoma medication.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Randomized Trial to Evaluate the Efficacy of the Nanodropper Device for Pupillary Dilation and Cycloplegia in Children.Ophthalmology · 2023Trial
- 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
- Inkjet drug printing onto contact lenses: Deposition optimisation and non-invasive dose verification.International journal of pharmaceutics: X · 2023Article
- Reduction of Eyedrop Volume for Topical Ophthalmic Medications with the Nanodropper Bottle Adaptor.Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2023Article
- Plasma Pharmacokinetic Parameters of Dexamethasone Following Administration of a Dexamethasone Intracanalicular Insert in Healthy Adults.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2021Article
- Prevalence and Risk Factors of Dry Eye Disease among Adults in Saudi Arabia.Saudi journal of medicine & medical sciencesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe purpose of this study is to evaluate the number of eyedrops available per bottle of a variety of commonly prescribed glaucoma medications.
methodsSix bottles of each glaucoma medication were tested: three each in the vertical and horizontal orientations. Bottles were housed in a customized force gauge apparatus designed to mimic ballpoint fingertip contact with a bottle. At a standard rate, all drops were expressed from each bottle and counted with an automated drop counter. Simultaneously, bottle volume was measured and drop size and number were also estimated. The main outcome measures were: total number of drops, volume per bottle and drops per milliliter (mL) of glaucoma medication.
resultsA total of 192 bottles from 32 bottle designs and manufacturers were tested. Twenty-two of the 32 bottle designs had a significantly different mean number of drops in the vertical and horizontal positions, with 10 designs have more drops dispensed in the horizontal orientation and 12 in the vertical orientation. Six of the 32 bottle designs had a significantly different mean total bottle volume in the vertical and horizontal positions, with all designs having greater volume in the vertical position. An adjusted ratio of mean number of drops/mean bottle volume demonstrated a range from 20.9 drops/mL to 40.8 drops/mL.
conclusionsThere is significant variability in drops and volume available per bottle of glaucoma medication depending on both the bottle position and manufacturer. These data point to the need for circumspection in prescribing glaucoma medications and caution in evaluating therapeutic outcomes.
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.