Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42373870›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2026

Risk factors for visual field progression during 10-year follow-up in newly diagnosed exfoliation glaucoma patients.

Marcelo Ayala, Tobias Dahlgren

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Marcelo AyalaEye Department, Mölndal Hospital, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Region Västra Götaland, Göteborgsvägen 31, Gothenburg, Mölndal, 431 80, Sweden. marcelo.ayala@gu.se.
Tobias DahlgrenDepartment of Ophthalmology, NU Hospital Group, Region Västra Götaland, Uddevalla, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To identify risk factors associated with visual field progression over long-term follow-up (10 years) in patients newly diagnosed with exfoliation glaucoma. This was a non-randomised, prospective cohort study including patients newly diagnosed with exfoliation glaucoma. Visual field progression was assessed using three methods mean deviation (MD), visual field index (VFI), and guided progression analysis (GPA). Baseline variables to be evaluated included intraocular pressure (IOP), sex, age, visual fields, uni- or bilateral presentation, visual acuity, lens status (phakic/pseudophakic), central corneal thickness (CCT), optic nerve status, and gonioscopy findings. Additionally, a questionnaire on, hypertension, diabetes, migraine, smoking, and family history of glaucoma. Multivariable regression analyses were performed to identify risk factors. A total of 58 patients completed the 10-year follow-up. The IOP at inclusion was 32.06 (± 6.05) mmHg. In the MD model, significant risk factors for progression included older age (p = 0.002), smoking (p = 0.004), phakic lens status (p < 0.001), and lower CCT (p = 0.02). In the VFI model, significant risk factors were older age (p = 0.009) and smoking (p = 0.04). In the GPA model, risk factors included older age (p = 0.001) and smoking (p = 0.01). Older age at diagnosis and a history of smoking were found to be significantly associated with an increased risk of long-term visual field progression.

Indexed as

Exfoliation SyndromeGlaucomaVisual FieldsAgedDisease ProgressionFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansIntraocular PressureMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesRisk FactorsVisual AcuityCohort studiesExfoliation glaucomaIntraocular pressureModelsVisual fields

Identifiers

PMID42373870
PMCPMC13319220

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.