Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40880143›Full record

Trial reportIndian journal of ophthalmology2025

Efficacy and safety of pilocarpine hydrochloride ophthalmic solution USP 1.25% w/v versus placebo ophthalmic solution for the treatment of presbyopia - A multicentric clinical trial.

Parul Singh, Tejal Garasiya, Vidya Ajila, Sabyasachi Sengupta, Aditi Datta, M Nivean

Abstract readRandomized Controlled TrialMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in Indian journal of ophthalmology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Parul SinghDepartment of Ophthalmology (DOP), GSVM Hospital, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Tejal GarasiyaDepartment of Ophthalmology (DOP), Anand Multispeciality Hospital and Research Centre, Gandhinagar, Gujarat, India.
Vidya AjilaRegulatory Affairs, Entod Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.
Sabyasachi SenguptaDepartment of Ophthalmology (DOP) Future Vision Eye Care, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.
Aditi DattaCEO, Biosite Research Private Limited, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India.
M NiveanDepartment of Cataract and Vitreoretinal Services M. N Eye Hospital, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of 1.25% pilocarpine compared to placebo for the treatment of presbyopia.

methodsThis multicenter, randomized, double-masked clinical trial compared pilocarpine 1.25% to placebo in presbyopic individuals aged 45-55 years, meeting standard near vision impairment criteria. Participants were randomized 1:1 using a computer-generated sequence, with identical, unmarked bottles ensuring masking. Distance-corrected near visual acuity (DCNVA) and distance-corrected intermediate visual acuity (DCIVA) were assessed under mesopic and photopic conditions across multiple visits (days 1, 3, 7, 14, and 30). The primary outcome was a ≥ 3-line gain in mesopic, high-contrast, binocular DCNVA at day 30, hour 3. Secondary outcomes included photopic and intermediate vision improvements.

resultsA total of 234 participants (mean age 49 ± 3 years, 57% male) were randomized equally. By day 3, pilocarpine demonstrated a significant half-line improvement in high-contrast, binocular mesopic DCNVA (0.47 ± 0.1 vs. 0.51 ± 0.1 logMAR, P = 0.03), progressing to 1.3 lines by day 30 (0.37 ± 0.1 vs. 0.50 ± 0.1, P < 0.001). Nearly 50% achieved a two-line gain (n = 54 [46%] vs. 10 [8%], P = 0.001), and one-third gained three lines (n = 36 [31%)] vs. 5 [4%], P < 0.001). Pilocarpine's effect was cumulative, with each visit's baseline DCNVA surpassing prior measurements (P < 0.001). Photopic DCNVA followed a similar trend (0.31 ± 0.1 vs. 0.43 ± 0.1 logMAR, P = 0.02 at day 30, hour 3). Intermediate DCIVA showed a modest half-line improvement by day 30. No adverse drug reactions or ophthalmic side effects were observed during the study.

conclusionPilocarpine 1.25% effectively improves near vision in presbyopia, with sustained benefits up to day 30 and potential long-term adaptability.

Indexed as

PilocarpinePresbyopiaVision, BinocularVisual AcuityDose-Response Relationship, DrugDouble-Blind MethodFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedMuscarinic AgonistsOphthalmic SolutionsTreatment OutcomeMuscarinic AgonistsOphthalmic SolutionsPilocarpineNear visionpilocarpinepresbyopia

Identifiers

PMID40880143
PMCPMC12448526

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.