The efficacy and harm of prostaglandin analogues for IOP reduction in glaucoma patients compared to dorzolamide and brimonidine: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To systematically review the literature on the efficacy and harm of prostaglandin analogues (PGAs) compared to brimonidine and dorzolamide in treating elevated intraocular pressure (IOP). METHODS: Keywords were searched in major literature databases to identify relevant randomised clinical trials (RCTs) of PGAs for ophthalmic use. The study quality of RCTs was assessed using the Jadad scale. Outcomes assessed included reduction in IOP in individual patients, adverse events (AEs) and withdrawals due to AEs. RESULTS: Eight unique RCTs evaluating a total of 1,722 individuals were included in this systematic review. Analysis did not show a significant reduction in the mean IOP from patients receiving latanoprost compared with those receiving brimonidine (WMD = -1.04; p = 0.30). On the other hand, the latanoprost group showed a significant reduction in mean IOP compared to the dorzolamide group (WMD = -2.64; p<0.00001). The number of ocular AEs (excluding hyperaemia) was significantly higher in the brimonidine group compared with the latanoprost group (RR = 0.66; p = 0.0005). CONCLUSION: Latanoprost was found to be significantly superior to dorzolamide but not brimonidine. However, ocular adverse events were significantly fewer in latanoprost users than in brimonide users. Neither travoprost nor bimatoprost was compared to dorzolamide or brimonidine in the present literature.
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 | 0.007 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".