Trial reportJapanese journal of ophthalmology2020
Comparing the trabecular outflow by the response to topical pilocarpine in patients with and without glaucoma filtering surgery.
Trial report in Japanese journal of ophthalmology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Can pilocarpine effectively and safely manage glaucoma in the modern era? A systematic review and meta-analysis.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the trabecular outflow by the response to topical pilocarpine administration in patients with and without prior glaucoma filtering surgery. STUDY
designProspective, cross-sectional, randomized, double-blinded study.
methodsOpen-angle glaucoma (OAG) patients without any prior glaucoma surgery, and those with prior trabeculectomy or tube shunt surgery aged 18-90 years were included. Both groups were randomized into pilocarpine or artificial tears (ATs). Intraocular pressure (IOP) was measured before and 90 min after the instillation of eye drops.
resultsA total of 189 eyes of 189 patients were included: 92 eyes in the pilocarpine and 97 eyes in the ATs group. There was a mean ± standard deviation of - 0.81 ± 3.08 mmHg decrease in IOP with pilocarpine in those without prior surgery, significantly higher than the ATs group (0.55 ± 2.31 mmHg; p = 0.02). No significant change in IOP with pilocarpine was noted in the surgical group compared to the ATs group (p = 0.90). In the surgery group, greater IOP reduction was observed with pilocarpine in those who had undergone surgery within the last three years than those who had surgery three or more years prior (- 1.56 ± 2.64 versus 1.41 ± 2.77 mmHg; p = 0.001).
conclusionLess IOP reduction was observed with pilocarpine in patients who had filtering surgery more than three years previously compared to those with more recent surgery.
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.