Observational studyBMC ophthalmology2025
Assessment of eye drop instillation technique in patients with glaucoma: a hospital-based cross-sectional study in Eastern China.
Observational study in BMC ophthalmology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Clinical Microbial Contamination of Multidose Brimonidine: A Prospective Comparison of Benzalkonium Chloride and Purite® Preservatives.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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo objectively and subjectively assess eye drop instillation in patients with glaucoma, and identified factors associated with eye drop instillation failure.
methodsThis cross-sectional observational study included patients who visited an outpatient clinic between August and November 2023. Patients were objectively assessed by observing a demonstration, and subjectively assessed through interview responses.
resultsA total of 187 individuals diagnosed with glaucoma participated, with an average age of 63.1 ± 10.5 years. During the demonstration, 84.5% of participants succeeded in squeezing at least one drop in the eye; however, only 68 patients (36.4%) were classified as having instillation success. The objective and subjective evaluations were inconsistent in 80 of 187 patients (42.8%) and the deviations mainly included the following steps: wash hands (55.6% vs. 85.6%, P < 0.001), squeeze one drop (62.0% vs. 84.5%, P < 0.001), drip into the pocket (84.5% vs. 68.4%, P < 0.001), avoid tip touches adnexa or ocular surface (51.9% vs. 69.0%, P = 0.001), gently close eyes (50.8% vs. 84.0%, P < 0.001), performs nasolacrimal occlusion (18.7% vs. 44.4%, P < 0.001), not blinking frequently after eye drop instillation (39.0% vs. 65.2%, P < 0.001). Multivariate analysis revealed that factors associated with instillation failure included older age (P = 0.02), binocular disease (P = 0.03), residential status of living alone (P = 0.001), and self-reported difficulty (P = 0.03).
conclusionsPatient self-reports did not accurately reflect their eye drop techniques. Thus, incorporation of more diverse eye drop assessment methods and educational tools for patients with glaucoma is necessary. Physicians can identify patients in need of guidance by assessing risk factors for eye drop instillation failure rather than solely relying on patient reports.
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.