Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42382286›Full record

ArticleDigital journal of ophthalmology : DJO2025

A simple mathematical approach to identifying baseline predictors of the effectiveness of carbonic anhydrase inhibitors in intraocular pressure reduction.

Wichapol Dendumrongsup

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Digital journal of ophthalmology : DJO, 2025. 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

1 author.

Wichapol DendumrongsupKing Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Thai Red Cross Society, Bangkok, Thailand.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: To identify mathematically the baseline physiological predictors of the intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering effectiveness of topical carbonic anhydrase inhibitors (CAIs). Materials and Methods: Assuming a steady state of aqueous humor flow, mathematical equations describing IOP were formulated by incorporating related physiological variables. Global sensitivity analysis was then performed, in which all variables were varied simultaneously across their clinically reported ranges. This computational approach quantified the percentage reduction in IOP achieved by CAIs and identified the key determinants underlying variability in their effectiveness. Results: A reduction in the solute influx via active transport by the ciliary epithelium, mediated by CAIs, was positively associated with the magnitude of IOP reduction. Among the physiological parameters in this model-trabecular outflow facility, uveoscleral outflow fraction, episcleral venous pressure, mean arterial pressure, plasma protein concentration, albumin/globulin ratio, and plasma osmolarity-a higher baseline trabecular outflow facility was the strongest predictor of reduced effectiveness of CAIs, in terms of the percentage of IOP reduction. Other baseline physiological parameters had no significant effect on the effectiveness of CAIs. Conclusions: Certain patient characteristics may be associated with compromised effectiveness of CAIs in terms of percentage IOP reduction. These characteristics, potentially associated with higher trabecular outflow facility, may include a lower baseline IOP or prior use of other trabecular outflow-enhancing medications before CAI initiation. Further studies are required to validate the clinical significance of these findings.

Indexed as

Aqueous HumorCarbonic Anhydrase InhibitorsGlaucomaIntraocular PressureModels, TheoreticalHumansCarbonic Anhydrase Inhibitors

Identifiers

PMID42382286
PMCPMC13317502

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.