The Effect of Prostaglandin Analogs on Central Corneal Thickness of Patients with Glaucoma or Ocular Hypertension: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prostaglandin analogs (PGAs) are first-line antiglaucoma agents that appear to either decrease or increase central cornea thickness (CCT), creating controversy regarding the benefits of PGAs in treating CCT. PURPOSE: We performed the first meta-analysis of observational studies to evaluate the effects of PGAs on CCT in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension (OHT). METHODS: This systematic review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. A literature search was performed of the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe (Open Grey), and ClinicalTrials.gov databases and the references of retrieved studies. Only observational studies were included in the meta-analysis. The final CCT of patients and 95% confidence interval (CI) of each study were extracted. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). A fixed-effects model was used to calculate the weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% CI. Subgroup analyses based on several stratified factors such as public bias (Begg's test) and sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Five cohort, 5 case-control, and three cross-sectional studies including 2,722 subjects were included. The pooled effect of all thirteen studies showed that PGAs reduced the CCT of patients with glaucoma or OHT slightly but significantly (WMD = -9.37; 95% CI [-12.18, -6.57]; p = 0.00; I2 = 45.5%). Significant effects were also observed in all three study designs: cohort (WMD = -5.17; 95% CI [-9.52, -0.82]), case-control (WMD = -15.31; 95% CI [-22.66, -7.97]), and cross-sectional (WMD = -8.65; 95% CI [-17.30, -0.01]). In addition, subgroup analysis of exposure time showed the effect of PGAs to be more obvious in the first (WMD = -5.81; 95% CI [-9.49, -2.14]) and second (WMD = -13.73; 95% CI [-20.19, -7.28]) years. CONCLUSIONS: The pooled effects of previously reported studies suggest that PGA use can reduce the CCT of patients with glaucoma or OHT slightly but significantly, with this effect more pronounced in the first 2 years. These findings suggest that clinicians must closely monitor changes in CCT in the first 2 years of PGA use to identify cases of intraocular pressure misestimation and the efficacy of PGAs.
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 | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.017 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".