ArticleOphthalmology and therapy2019
Comparison of Once-Daily Bromfenac 0.07% Versus Once-Daily Nepafenac 0.3% in Patients Undergoing Phacoemulsification.
Article in Ophthalmology and therapy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01847638 (Clinical Outcomes of Prolensa), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 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.
Clinical Outcomes of Prolensa (Bromfenac Ophthalmic Solution) 0.07% QD vs. Ilevro (Nepafenac Ophthalmic Suspension) 0.3% QD for Treatment of Ocular Inflammation Associated With Cataract Surgery
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Topical NSAIDs impact on macular oedema and visual outcome after phacoemulsification: systematic review of RCTs with network meta-analysis.Eye (London, England) · 2024Pooled it
- Article
- Bromfenac Ophthalmic Solution 0.07% Versus Nepafenac Ophthalmic Suspension 0.3% for Post-Cataract Surgery Inflammation: A Pilot Study of Identical Dosing Regimens with Pre-Surgical "Pulse" Dose.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimRandomized pilot study comparing clinical outcomes with bromfenac ophthalmic solution 0.07% versus nepafenac 0.3% ophthalmic suspension administered as identical dosing regimens in patients undergoing uncomplicated phacoemulsification with intraocular lens implantation.
methodsForty-nine subjects were treated with bromfenac (n = 25) or nepafenac (n = 24) once daily starting 3 days before cataract surgery, continued on the day of surgery, and for 21 days following surgery, in addition to standard of care. Subjects were followed at 1 day and 7, 21, and 42 days postoperatively. Assessments included best-corrected visual acuity [Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS)], summed ocular inflammation score (SOIS; anterior chamber cells plus flare grading), macular volume and thickness (spectral domain optical coherence tomography), intraocular pressure, and adverse events.
resultsTreatment groups were similar at baseline. Outcomes for mean letters read (p = 0.20), mean change in macular volume (p = 0.98), and retinal thickness (p = 0.93) were not statistically different between the groups at day 42. Mean SOIS dropped markedly and similarly from post-surgical day 1 to day 7 in both treatment groups and was statistically equivalent to baseline in both groups by day 21. At day 42, 87% of subjects in the bromfenac group and 82% of subjects in the nepafenac group demonstrated stable or improved visual acuity. The proportions of eyes with mean retinal thickness of 10 µm or less at days 7, 21, and 42 were similar for the bromfenac (95.8%, 78.3%, 73.9%, respectively) and nepafenac (91.7%, 87.5%, 66.7%) groups (all p = NS, bromfenac vs. nepafenac).
conclusionBoth bromfenac 0.07% and nepafenac 0.3% produced positive and similar clinical outcomes with regard to ETDRS visual acuity post-cataract surgery when dosed using identical regimens. Increases in mean retinal thickness and mean macular volume were small and similar between treatments. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01847638.
fundingBausch & Lomb Incorporated.
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.