Trial reportJournal of cataract and refractive surgery2026
Real-world efficacy, safety, and usability of a microvolume eyedrop delivery device in glaucoma: prospective randomized crossover trial.
Trial report in Journal of cataract and refractive surgery, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeComparing the intraocular pressure lowering (IOP-L) of microdrops (MD) dispensed with the Nanodropper with conventional drops (CD) in patients on IOP-L monotherapy.
settingOutpatient clinic.
designProspective, crossover, examiner-masked, active-controlled, randomized trial conducted at a single center.
methodsWe enrolled adults with stable primary glaucoma or ocular hypertension on monotherapy with either latanoprost 0.005% or timolol maleate 0.5%. Participants self-administered either CD or MD for 12 weeks, then crossed over to the alternate treatment for an additional 12 weeks. The primary outcome was IOP at 12 weeks compared with baseline at enrollment. Secondary outcomes included running out of drops (premature bottle exhaustion or PBE), adverse effects (AEs), and subjective evaluations of the device's usability.
results29 participants completed the study. MD significantly decreased IOP from baseline by 1.6 mm Hg (95% CI 0.88-2.29), compared with a CD (0.13 mm Hg, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.52). Incidence of PBE decreased from 83% with CD to 17% with MD. AEs were reduced from 83% of participants reporting at least 1 AE with CD vs 62% with MD. Most found MD easy to administer and believed it helped prevent eyedrop waste.
conclusionsMD delivered with the Nanodropper adaptor provided additional IOP-L, significantly reduced PBE, and decreased the occurrence and severity of nonsystemic AEs compared with CD in this cohort of stable primary open-angle glaucoma/ocular hypertension participants. MD use among glaucoma participants may enhance tolerability, and improve adherence and long-term IOP control.
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.