ArticleBMC ophthalmology2025
Oral contraceptive use and intraocular pressure: findings from a population-based cross-sectional study.
Article 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, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Sugammadex and intraocular pressure: systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.BMC anesthesiology · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo investigate the association between oral contraceptive pill (OCP) use and intraocular pressure (IOP) among women aged 35–50 years, considering confounding factors such as age, body mass index (BMI), hypertension, and family history of glaucoma.
methodsThis population-based cross-sectional study included 100 women aged 35–50 years. Participants were categorized into OCP users (n = 50) and non-users (n = 50). Ocular examinations, including Goldmann applanation tonometry for IOP measurement, were conducted between 7:30 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. Detailed medical histories were obtained, and relevant covariates such as age, BMI, blood pressure, and family history of glaucoma were recorded. Statistical analysis involved descriptive statistics, independent t-tests, and analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) to assess the relationship between OCP use and IOP, adjusting for identified confounding factors.
resultsThe mean duration of OCP use in the user group was 6.57 ± 5.21 years. After adjusting for age, BMI, hypertension, and family history of glaucoma, no statistically significant difference in mean IOP was found between OCP users (14.2 ± 2.8 mmHg) and non-users (14.5 ± 3.1 mmHg) (p = 0.592). The 95% confidence interval for the mean difference in IOP was − 1.24 to 0.73 mmHg.
conclusionThis study found no statistically significant association between oral contraceptive pill use and intraocular pressure in women aged 35–50 years after controlling for key confounding variables. While the difference was not statistically significant, the findings suggest that OCPs, as used by this cohort, do not lead to clinically meaningful alterations in IOP that would be of concern in routine ophthalmologic practice, considering the Minimal Clinically Important Difference for IOP is typically 2–3 mmHg. Further research with larger sample sizes and detailed OCP specifications is warranted.
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.