ArticleInvestigative ophthalmology & visual science2026
Ocular and General Determinants of Intraocular Pressure: The Two-Continent Eye Study.
Article in Investigative ophthalmology & visual science, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to assess associations of intraocular pressure (IOP) readings. Methods: This was a population-based studies conducted in Russia, China, and India. The project included the population-based investigations of the Beijing Eye Study (BES; n = 3139 participants, age = 40+ years), Ural Eye and Medical Study (UEMS; n = 5514, age = 40+ years), Ural Very Old Study (UVOS; n = 522, age = 85+ years), and Ural Children Eye Study (UCES; n = 4294, age = 6+ years), and Central India Eye and Medical Study (CIEMS; n = 4508, age = 30+ years). Pneumo-tonometry or applanation tonometry were performed. Results: The study included 35,199 eyes (17,977 individuals, mean age = 46.9 ± 23.2 years, range = 6-100 years, axial length = 23.2 ± 1.0 mm, range = 18.22-34.20 mm). In the test group (BES, UVOS, and UCES), higher IOP-readings were associated (r2 = 0.37) with younger age, female sex, rural habitation region, higher prevalence of diabetes mellitus, higher systolic blood pressure, thicker central corneal thickness (CCT) and smaller corneal curvature radius (i.e. steeper cornea), longer axial length, lower prevalence of cataract surgery, and higher prevalence of pseudoexfoliation. IOP values, corrected for these associations, correlated with the IOP readings in the external validation groups of UEMS (r2 = 0.85) and CIEMS (r2 = 0.80). In Bland-Altman analysis, the mean bias was 0.80 millimeters of mercury (mm Hg; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.76-0.84 or 5.8%, 95% CI = 5.5-6.1) and 1.51 mm Hg (95% CI = 1.47-1.56 or 10.2%, 95% CI = 9.9-10.5), in the UEMS and CIEMS, respectively. The corrected IOP compared to the measured IOP was 8.1 mm Hg lower and 10.0 mm Hg higher, respectively, in 2 clinical examples. A real IOP value of 21 mm Hg corresponded to a measured IOP readings ranging from 29.1 mm Hg to 11.0 mm Hg. Conclusions: Among numerous ocular and systemic factors influencing IOP readings (with a relative low correlation coefficient), corneal curvature radius was one of the main ocular determinants. Correction of measured IOP readings led to a large interindividual variation in the upper limit of the "normal" IOP range.
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.