Prostaglandin Analog Treatment of Glaucoma and Ocular Hypertension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To review available data related to the use of prostaglandin analogs (bimatoprost, latanoprost, travoprost, unoprostone) in the management of ocular hypertension and open-angle glaucoma. DATA SOURCES: Primary and review articles were identified from a MEDLINE search (1966-May 2001) and requested information from product manufacturers. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: All available information, including that published in articles and abstracts, which was deemed relevant was included in this review. Limited data have been published to date. DATA SYNTHESIS: The prostaglandin analogs appear to be effective, well-tolerated agents for the reduction of intraocular pressure (IOP) in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension. This drug class offers an alternative for patients who do not achieve control with another topical antiglaucoma agent or for those with a contraindication to first-line therapy with beta-adrenergic antagonists. Based on preliminary clinical data, bimatoprost, latanoprost, and travoprost appear to be at least as effective as timolol, while the effectiveness of unoprostone is similar or slightly less. Prostaglandin analogs may be used in conjunction with other antiglaucoma medications, although further studies must establish the optimal combination. Whether clinical experience will yield outcomes in favor of one of the prostaglandin analogs remains to be determined. Patients should be educated on adverse events associated with prostaglandin analogs, particularly the potential for changes in the pigmentation of the iris and eyelashes. CONCLUSIONS: Bimatoprost, latanoprost, and travoprost appear to be equivalent to the current standard of therapy in the topical treatment of elevated IOP. Further clinical data published in article versus abstract format is required to better assess potential differences among these 3 agents.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".