ArticleInternational ophthalmology2022
Testing the eligibility of glaucoma patients for potential gene therapy among a clinic population.
Article in International ophthalmology, 2022. 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.
- The concept of gene therapy for glaucoma: the dream that has not come true yet.Neural regeneration research · 2024Review
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 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeGlaucoma patients who deteriorate despite standard treatment may benefit from novel gene therapies. Key inclusion criteria for a glaucoma gene therapy trial were devised. A retrospective chart review in a glaucoma clinic population was conducted. Feasibility of gene therapy inclusion criteria and factors associated with progression and fast progression < -1 decibels/year (dB/y) were evaluated.
methodsThree hundred and seventy-four primary open-angle glaucoma patients all of whom had performed at least five Swedish interactive threshold algorithm standard visual fields within a 58-month period. Two definitions were applied to characterize visual field progression rate using Guided Progression Analysis for an individual patient based on A, the eye with the greatest visual field loss, or B, the eye with the most rapid progression rate.
resultsMean rate of visual field progression was -0.50 dB/y (Definition A) and -0.64 dB/y (Definition B). 19.0% (A) and 21.9% (B) of eyes, 71 (A) and 82 (B) eyes, were 'fast progressors' (< -1 dB/y). 37 (A) and 43 (B) eyes met the putative gene therapy inclusion criteria (≥ 50 years; mean deviation ≤ -4 to ≥ -12 or ≤ -20 dB, progression rate between -1 and -4 dB/y). Beta blockers (Odds ratio (OR) with 95% Confidence Intervals (CI): 2.84 (1.39-5.80); p = 0.004) (A), (OR (95%CI): 2.48 (1.30-4.75); p = 0.006) (B) and alpha agonists (OR (95%CI): 2.18 (1.14-4.17); p = 0.02) (A), (OR (95%CI) 2.00 (1.08-3.73); p = 0.028) (B) were significantly associated with fast progression.
conclusionA substantial proportion (10%) of patients in this clinic population would meet recommended gene therapy inclusion criteria.
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.