ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
MoCA-screen-positive status differs across intraocular pressure subtypes of primary open-angle glaucoma.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Cognitive vulnerability may differ across intraocular pressure-defined subtypes of primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG), but visually dependent cognitive-screening tasks and residual confounding complicate interpretation. Methods: This single-center observational study included 93 patients with POAG [49 normal-tension glaucoma (NTG) and 44 high-tension glaucoma (HTG)]. A corrected Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) score <26 defined MoCA-screen-positive status. A vision-reduced MoCA-22 score was calculated by removing the eight points assigned to visuospatial/executive and naming tasks. Sequential NTG-vs.-HTG models added demographics, visual field index (VFI), retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness, diabetes, and systolic blood pressure. Subtype-by-PSQI and subtype-by-RNFL interactions, strict peak-IOP classification, structure-function correlations, mood-adjusted PSQI models, and bootstrap internal validation were examined. Results: MoCA-screen-positive status occurred in 44/93 participants (47.3%) and was more frequent in NTG than HTG (59.2% vs. 34.1%; crude OR: 2.80, 95% CI: 1.20-6.52; Conclusion: NTG was associated with more frequent MoCA-screen-positive status and lower vision-reduced MoCA scores after measured visual, vascular, and metabolic adjustment. The subgroup correlates and model performance remain exploratory and require prospective external validation; the present data do not establish distinct causal NTG and HTG phenotypes.
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.