MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7047775322

Impact of Inhaled and Intranasal Corticosteroids Exposure on the Risk of Ocular Hypertension and Glaucoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2022· article· en· W7047775322 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicMagnetic confinement fusion research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlaucomaOcular hypertensionIncidence (geometry)Inhaled corticosteroidsIntraocular pressureAsthmaPopulationRisk factor
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Anastasiya Vinokurtseva,1 Matthew Fung,1 Erica Ai Li,2 Richard Zhang,1 James J Armstrong,1,2 Cindy ML Hutnik1– 3 1Department of Ophthalmology, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, London, Ontario, Canada; 2Department of Pathology, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, London, Ontario, Canada; 3Ivey Eye Institute, St Joseph’s Healthcare, London, Ontario, CanadaCorrespondence: Anastasiya Vinokurtseva, Department of Ophthalmology, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, 268 Grosvenor St., London, ON, N6A 4V2, Canada, Tel +1 519.646.6100 x.66272, Fax +1 519.646.6410, Email avinokurtseva2022@meds.uwo.caPurpose: Starting in 2019, the Global Initiative for Asthma recommended the use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) as part of reliever combination therapy in patients 12 years of age and older, thus dramatically increasing the population exposure to ICS. ICS and intranasal corticosteroids (INS) are commonly used for a variety of respiratory diseases. Chronic steroid use is a well-known risk factor for elevated intraocular pressure (IOP) and glaucoma regardless of route of administration. This study aimed to determine the reported risk of glaucoma, ocular hypertension (OHT) and IOP elevation associated with ICS and INS use.Materials and Methods: Systematic literature search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, CINAHL, BIOSIS, and Web of Science databases from the date of inception identified studies that assess ocular outcomes related to glaucoma in ICS and INS users. Study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction were done independently in duplicate. Meta-analysis assessed glaucoma incidence, OHT incidence and IOP changes in patients using ICS and INS. Study adhered to PRISMA guidelines. Study protocol was registered with PROSPERO: CRD42020190241.Results: Qualitative and quantitative analyses included 65 and 41 studies, respectively. Incidence of glaucoma was not significantly different in either ICS or INS users compared to control over 45,457 person-years of follow-up. Similarly, no significant difference in OHT incidence over 4431 person-years was detected. In studies reporting IOP, a significantly higher IOP was observed (0.69 mmHg) in 857 ICS or INS users compared to 615 controls. However, no significant increase in IOP was observed within ICS or INS users when compared to pre-treatment baseline.Conclusion: Overall, use of ICS or INS does not significantly increase the incidence of glaucoma or OHT. However, ICS and INS patients had significantly higher IOPs compared to untreated patients. Awareness of these findings is significant in care of patients with additional risk factors for glaucoma.Keywords: corticosteroids, asthma, glaucoma, intranasal, inhalation

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.028
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.170
GPT teacher head0.483
Teacher spread0.313 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)→Same topicMagnetic confinement fusion research→French-language works237,207→