ReviewCureus2026
Use of Bimatoprost Intracameral Implant for the Treatment of Glaucoma: A Focused Narrative Review.
Review in Cureus, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objective of this focused narrative review is to summarize clinical and preclinical evidence on intracameral bimatoprost implants for adults with open-angle glaucoma (OAG) or ocular hypertension (OHT), focusing on comparative efficacy, safety, and adherence-related outcomes. PubMed/MEDLINE and Google Scholar were searched from inception through January 31, 2026, using combinations of the terms bimatoprost implant, bimatoprost sustained-release, bimatoprost SR, Durysta, glaucoma, and ocular hypertension. Eligible reports included human clinical trials or observational studies evaluating any intracameral bimatoprost implant dose in OAG or OHT, and relevant nonclinical pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamic studies. Conference abstracts without full text and non-English reports were excluded. Records were screened at the title/abstract level followed by full-text review, and data were extracted on intraocular pressure change, need for rescue therapy or additional procedures, treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), and corneal endothelial cell density (CECD). Across phase I/II and phase III trials, bimatoprost implants produced intraocular pressure reductions comparable to topical timolol or topical bimatoprost through early follow-up, and many eyes remained drop-free for months to a year. Corneal adverse events and CECD loss were infrequent after single administration but increased with fixed-interval repeat dosing, with a less favorable profile at higher dose strengths. It was concluded that intracameral bimatoprost implants offer a drop-sparing alternative that may reduce adherence burden, but careful patient selection and monitoring for corneal endothelial effects are central to safe use.
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.