ArticleGraefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie2021
A multicentric study of pharmacological treatment for presbyopia.
Article in Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Current Trends in Presbyopia Correction-A Comprehensive Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Pharmacological Modulation of Pupil Size in Presbyopia: Optical Modeling and Clinical Implications.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Pharmacological Treatment of Presbyopia Using Pilocarpine 1.25% Eye Drops.Journal of ophthalmic & vision research · 2024Article
- New Sight for Old: Commentary On the Use of Pilocarpine for Presbyopia.Journal of ophthalmic & vision research · 2024Article
- Pilocarpine in the Treatment of Presbyopia: Progress, Issues, and Future Prospects.Drugs & aging · 2024Review
- Pharmacological Treatment in Presbyopia.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
- Ocular Autonomic Nervous System: An Update from Anatomy to Physiological Functions.Vision (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- A Comparative Validation Study of Near Visual Acuity Assessment Using Different Handheld Acuity Charts.Ophthalmology scienceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the safety, efficacy, and patient satisfaction with a pharmacological treatment of presbyopia performed with the Benozzi's method.
methodsA non-randomized multicentric case-series retrospective study was developed. Were included patients from 5 centers of Argentina, from January 2010 to June 2019, aged at baseline between 40 and 60 years old, with binocular uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) of 25/20 or better, and with uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA) at least Jaeger (J) 2 or worse. The treatment was performed with a patented formulation (pilocarpine and diclofenac preservative-free eye drops). The main outcome was binocular UNVA and UDVA. Differences were evaluated by paired t-test. The presence of side effects and patient's satisfaction were also evaluated. Data was analyzed in separated groups according to their follow-up time, from 2 to 10 years.
resultsA total of 148 patients were included. At baseline, the UNVA for the different groups were between J3 and J8 which was improved to J1 to J2. The mean baseline UDVA has been ranged between 0.02 and 0.04 logMAR. The mean baseline UDVA has been ranged between 0.02 to 0.04 logMAR, after treatment were between 0.01 to 0.03, without a statisticallysignificant improvement. Side effects were spontaneously resolved, and subjective evaluation shows that patients were satisfied.
conclusionsThis first multicentric shows that Benozzi's method for presbyopia treatment was safety and improves the UNVA without affecting the UDVA, maintaining their efficacy even after 10 years, in a population aged between 40 and 60 years old, from different ophthalmic centers in Argentina.
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.