ReviewJournal of current ophthalmology
A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on the Efficacy and Safety of Topical Pilocarpine 1.25% in Presbyopia Treatment.
Review in Journal of current ophthalmology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Efficacy and safety of pilocarpine for the treatment of presbyopia: a systematic review and meta‑analysis of randomized controlled trials.Scientific reports · 2026Pooled it
- Repeated low-level red-light therapy for improving asthenopic symptoms and accommodation in presbyopia.Annals of medicine · 2026Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To do a qualitative and quantitative assessment of the existing literature on the effectiveness and safety of pilocarpine 1.25% eye drops in presbyopia management. Methods: Relevant articles were extracted from the online database using keywords - "pilocarpine and presbyopia", "AGN-190584 and presbyopia", and "Vuity and presbyopia". The primary outcome measure considered was an improvement in distance-corrected near visual acuity (DCNVA) and secondary outcome measures were improvement in distance-corrected intermediate visual acuity (DCIVA) and adverse events (AEs). Risk of bias (ROB) assessment was done using the ROB2 tool and R software was used for quantitative analysis. Results: The 3 included randomized control trials (RCTs) had a total of 980 participants between 40-55 years of age. They were randomized into 2 groups - 489 in the pilocarpine group and 491 in the vehicle group. In the pilocarpine group, 1.25% of pilocarpine was used either once (in the Gemini 1 and 2 trials) or twice daily (Virgo trial). A significantly higher proportion of patients reported improvement of DCIVA and gain of ≥ 3 lines in binocular DCNVA in the pilocarpine group than the vehicle group ( Conclusions: The available evidence documents significant improvement in near and intermediate vision in presbyopia participants with pilocarpine 1.25% drop. However, more RCTs, involving a wider age group, larger refractive error, longer follow-up, and clinical testing in a real-world scenario are required to conclusively prove its role in presbyopia management.
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.