SynthesisEye (London, England)2024
Assessing the value of the water drinking test in glaucoma-a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Eye (London, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Intraocular pressure profiles between ipsilateral surgically and contralateral medically-controlled in primary open angle glaucoma patients.International journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Comparative Evaluation of Water Drinking Test Response in Advanced Glaucoma Patients with Prior Preserflo MicroShunt and Trabeculectomy Surgery.Journal of current ophthalmologyArticle
- The impact of intraocular pressure fluctuations on the progression of glaucoma and associated factors.Advances in ophthalmology practice and researchReview
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This systematic review and meta-analysis examines the relationship between intraocular pressure (IOP) parameters derived from the water drinking test (WDT) and diurnal IOP monitoring, and evaluates the reproducibility of the WDT and its association with future glaucomatous visual field (VF) loss. A literature search was performed on PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library from inception to 31 March 2023. Cohort, cross-sectional and observational studies reporting WDT results in glaucoma patients were included. Meta analysis with random-effect model was performed using "metafor" package in R version 3.2.1. 641 studies were identified on initial literature search. 38 studies (2479 subjects) were included in final analysis. Meta-analytic estimates of 5 studies (310 subjects) found strong positive correlation in peak IOP between the WDT and diurnal IOP monitoring (r = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.75, 1.08, p < 0.0001). However, there was only weak positive correlation for IOP fluctuation between both methods (r = 0.26, 95% CI = 0.06,0.47, p < 0.0001). Meta-analytic estimates of 3 studies (189 subjects) suggested a trend of the diurnal peak IOP being lower than that derived from the WDT (MD = -2.37 mmHg, 95% Limit of Agreement (LOA) =-5.58,0.84, p = 0.147). Two studies found that a higher WDT peak IOP was associated with greater future VF progression. Two studies demonstrated good reproducibility in peak IOP measurements for WDTs conducted across different days. In conclusion, there was a strong positive correlation between IOP peak measurements from the WDT and diurnal IOP monitoring in glaucoma patients. The WDT peak IOP demonstrated good reproducibility and may be associated with greater future VF progression.
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.