ArticleJapanese journal of ophthalmology2024
Long-term prognosis of acute primary angle closure in an east asian cohort.
Article in Japanese journal of ophthalmology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Longitudinal change in anterior chamber depth and its determinants: a median 4.9-year follow-up of 2,247 Japanese adults.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2026Article
- Seventeen-Year Clinical Analysis of Acute Primary Angle-Closure Glaucoma at a Single Japanese Tertiary Center.Cureus · 2026Article
- Cost-effectiveness of laser peripheral iridotomy in the treatment of primary angle closure suspect in China: a Markov model.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Predictors of visual field progression in acute and primary angle-closure disease: role of posture-related IOP changes and anterior segment structure.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2026Article
- Long-term outcomes following lens extraction surgery in acute primary angle closure.International journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo provide an updated analysis of the long-term outcomes of patients with acute primary angle closure (APAC) and to investigate the risk factors for visual field (VF) loss progression. STUDY
designRetrospective, clinical cohort study
methodsOne hundred and forty-six APAC patients with a minimum of 1-year follow-up were included. The presenting features and the treatment utilized were recorded. The visual and intraocular pressure (IOP) outcomes were analyzed. The main outcome measures were the proportion of blindness and IOP at the final visit. A subset of patients with sufficient VF results was divided into a stable and progressive group based on mean deviation (MD) loss rate. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to identify predictors of progression.
resultsNine patients (6.2%) were blind, and 76.0% (111/146) had final decimal visual acuity greater than or equal to 0.5. All patients had normal final IOP, and 65.1% (95/146) were medication-free. 64.4% (94/146) underwent cataract surgery at a median 4 months after their APAC attack. The use of topical hypotensive medications (OR = 8.029, P = 0.012) was the only significant predictor of fast MD loss in the multivariate regression.
conclusionsThe long-term outcomes of APAC in recent years have been more promising. All patients maintained normal IOP several years following their APAC attack, and fewer than half required hypotensive agents. The incidence of blindness was low. These findings suggest that current practice patterns in the management of APAC are beneficial.
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.