ArticleInvestigative ophthalmology & visual science2026
Pre-Diagnostic Plasma Endogenous Steroids and the Risk of Exfoliation Glaucoma.
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
- Update of
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: Exfoliation glaucoma (XFG) is the most common secondary glaucoma. Prior studies suggest a higher incidence in women and links to reproductive history, implying estrogen-related pathways. Metabolomic data also indicated inverse associations with steroid-related plasma metabolites, suggesting steroid involvement in XFG pathogenesis. Methods: We conducted a nested case-control study within the Nurses' Health Study (NHS; 1980-2018), NHSII (1989-2019), and Health Professionals Follow-up Study (1986-2018), with 217 XFG/XFG suspect (XFGS) cases and 217 matched controls (62 men and 372 women). We evaluated 18 endogenous steroids and 5 steroid classes using conditional logistic regression. Secondary analyses examined effect modifications by age and residential latitude, and heterogeneity by disease severity (XFGS versus XFG). Metabolite set enrichment analysis (MSEA) was used for class-level associations. Multiple comparisons were addressed using the number of effective (NEF) tests for individual steroids and the false discovery rate (FDR) for steroid classes. Results: No individual steroid or steroid class met NEF- or FDR-adjusted significance thresholds, overall or by sex. Nonetheless, across both sexes, MSEA demonstrated a nonsignificant inverse trend between androgen levels and XFG/XFGS risk (FDR = 0.22), with 11-ketotestosterone showing a nominal inverse association (odds ratio [OR] = 0.54, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.31-0.93, P = 0.03). Progestogen enrichment scores showed an adverse trend (FDR = 0.31), featuring a borderline adverse association between progesterone and XFG/XFGS (OR = 2.21, 95% CI = 1.00-4.87, P = 0.05). Conclusions: Although we observed no statistically significant associations with steroids after correction for multiple testing, the suggestive patterns for androgens and progestogens support the possibility of steroid-related pathways in XFG etiology and support further evaluation in larger studies.
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.