Effect of Oxymetazoline Nasal Spray on Intraocular Pressure and Retrobulbar Hemodynamics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of oxymetazoline nasal spray on intraocular pressure and retrobulbar hemodynamics in patients with open-angle glaucoma and to compare the results with those measured in healthy control participants. STUDY DESIGN: Controlled, prospective clinical trial. SETTING: University hospital. METHODS: Thirty patients with open-angle glaucoma and 30 healthy volunteers as controls were topically self-administered oxymetazoline nasal spray three times a day (one spray in each nostril of 0.05% concentration) for 5 days continuously. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Intraocular pressure and retrobulbar hemodynamics were measured in glaucomatous and normal eyes at baseline and at the end of oxymetazoline application . RESULTS: Oxymetazoline nasal spray lowered intraocular pressure significantly in both the glaucoma group (p = .02) and the control group (p = .001) after 5 days of treatment. The systemic parameters in the glaucoma and control groups (systolic blood pressure, p = .14 and p = .17; diastolic blood pressure, p = .18 and p = .49; and pulse rate, p = .06 and p = .50, respectively) did not show statistically significant differences during the study period. Additionally, except with a significant decrease in the resistivity index of the central retinal artery in the glaucoma patients (p = .001), oxymetazoline nasal spray did not result in any significant changes in the retrobulbar hemodynamics in both the glaucoma and control groups. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that a 5-day treatment with oxymetazoline nasal spray reduced intraocular pressure in both healthy controls and patients with glaucoma under treatment. In addition, it had no significant adverse effects on the retrobulbar hemodynamics.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".