ReviewCureus2025
Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Netarsudil-Containing Interventions for Intraocular Pressure Control: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Netarsudil has been approved for lowering elevated intraocular pressure (IOP), showing effectiveness through two distinct mechanisms. It is also effective when used in combination with other therapies to enhance outcomes. This study aims to compare the drug's effectiveness with other treatments, both as a standalone and in combination therapies, while also assessing potential adverse effects to evaluate its overall safety and suitability. We systematically searched PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science, and Scopus till the 7th of October. Data from eligible studies were extracted and combined using a frequentist network meta-analysis, presented as mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes and risk ratios (RRs) along with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used the Cochrane risk-of-bias (ROB) tool to assess the quality of the included RCTs. Netarsudil 0.02%/latanoprost 0.005% fixed-dose combination (FDC) q.d. was the most effective in reducing IOP in one-, two-, and six-week follow-ups in addition to the three-month follow-up. The netarsudil-containing medication was associated with higher adverse events compared to other arms. Netarsudil 0.02%/latanoprost 0.005% FDC q.d. and bimatoprost 0.03%/timolol 0.5% FDC emerged as the most effective therapies for lowering IOP, with each showing significant advantages at different follow-up points. Both FDCs achieved substantial reductions in IOP and a high proportion of patients reaching target IOPs. However, safety profiles indicate that traditional therapies like latanoprost 0.005% and timolol 0.5% may have fewer side effects, including lower incidences of blurred vision, conjunctival hemorrhage, and conjunctival hyperemia.
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.