ArticleOphthalmology and therapy2020
Pharmacological Therapy for Presbyopia in Patients with Previous Corneal Refractive Surgery: A Pilot Study.
Article in Ophthalmology and therapy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Presbyopia: Current Perspectives and Prospects for Patients.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026Review
- Pharmacological Treatment of Presbyopia Using Pilocarpine 1.25% Eye Drops.Journal of ophthalmic & vision research · 2024Article
- Non-Miotic Improvement in Binocular Near Vision with a Topical Compound Formula for Presbyopia Correction.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2023Article
- New insights in presbyopia: impact of correction strategies.BMJ open ophthalmology · 2023Review
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo perform a pilot evaluation of a novel pharmacological therapy for presbyopia in patients with previous corneal refractive surgery.
methodsThis interventional study included 130 presbyopic patients. The patients were divided into three groups: (1) LASIK group, which included patients with previous LASIK for myopia or hyperopia; (2) previous presbyopia surgery group, including patients with previous monovision or PresbyLASIK (PresbyMAX, SCHWIND eye-tech-solutions GmbH, Kleinostheim, Germany); and (3) control group, which included presbyopes without any corneal refractive procedure. The main reason for dividing them into groups is that we hypothesized that the previous presbyopia surgery group may have better outcomes as the patients already have an increased depth of field. The uncorrected near and distance visual acuity was measured before and 2 hours after the binocular instillation of the eye drop (FOV tears), as well as the objective scatter index (OSI), and pupil diameter in photopic and scotopic conditions. Side effects were reported as well.
resultsThere was a statistically significant improvement in the uncorrected near vision in all groups (p = 0.001). Ninety-one percent of the patients included in this study gained at least one line in near vision. All patients in the previous presbyopia surgery group gained at least one line in near vision. Six patients (13.9%) in the LASIK group and five (7.6%) in the control group did not gain any lines of near vision. There was no significant difference in the OSI, there was a significant change in pupil size in scotopic conditions in all groups (p = 0.001), and 5.3% of the patients reported having a headache as a side effect of the therapy.
conclusionsTopical treatment with this pharmacological therapy offers a potential for near vision improvement in patients with previous corneal refractive surgery, especially in those with previous presbyopia 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.