Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34079215›Full record

ReviewClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2021

Presbyopia - A Review of Current Treatment Options and Emerging Therapies.

James A Katz, Paul M Karpecki, Alexandra Dorca, Sima Chiva-Razavi, Heather Floyd, Elizabeth Barnes, Mark Wuttke, Eric Donnenfeld

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 65 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
65citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
10.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

65 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 106 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Design of Progressive Addition Lens for Presbyopia: A Systematic Review.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026
    Pooled it
  3. Surgical interventions for presbyopia.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025
    Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Extract fromNutrients · 2024
    Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Subjective clinical visual disturbance scores correlation with simulated vehicle headlight halo in presbyopia-correcting intraocular lenses.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

5 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

James A KatzThe Midwest Center for Sight, Des Plaines, IL, USA.
Paul M KarpeckiKentucky Eye Institute, Lexington, KY, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1390-2532
Alexandra DorcaFavoris AG, Basel, Switzerland.
Sima Chiva-RazaviNovartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland.
Heather FloydNovartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland.
Elizabeth BarnesNovartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland.
Mark WuttkeNovartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-5435-5099
Eric DonnenfeldOphthalmic Consultants of Long Island, Garden City, NY, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5235-1780
Novartis (Switzerland) · CHMidwest Eye Center · USOphthalmic Consultants of Long Island · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Presbyopia is a common age-related vision disorder characterized by a progressive inability to focus on near objects. If uncorrected or under-corrected, presbyopia can significantly impact patients' quality of life. Presbyopia represents an area of considerable unmet need due to its rising prevalence worldwide as the population ages, the high proportion of under-treated individuals in some parts of the world, and the limitations of currently available corrective methods. Progressive or bifocal spectacles are associated with peripheral blur, a restricted visual field and impaired depth perception, which have been linked to an increased risk of falls in the elderly. Contact lens options can be difficult to maintain due to the development of age-related dry eye symptoms and reduced manual dexterity. Other corrective methods involve surgical interventions that modify the optics of the cornea, replace the crystalline lens, or attempt to restore active accommodation. While patients undergoing surgery report satisfactory outcomes post-operatively, many of them eventually require reading glasses. Non-invasive therapies with novel mechanisms of action are currently being investigated; these include miotic agents and UNR844, a lipoic acid choline ester. In this narrative review, available evidence on presbyopia prevalence, quality of life impact and risk factors are described, with a focus on observational studies in non-clinical settings. The diagnosis pathway and patient journey in presbyopia are outlined, and various treatment options are analyzed. The data reviewed herein reveals significant gaps in the provision of vision correction for this common condition, with a paucity of effective, non-invasive treatment options broadly accessible to presbyopic individuals.

Indexed as

epidemiologypatient characterizationpharmacological therapiespresbyopiavision correction

Identifiers

PMID34079215
PMCPMC8163965
OpenAlexW3165728157

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.