Japanese journal of ophthalmology · 2011
Improved prediction of fellow-eye response in one-eye trials using multiple intraocular pressure measurements.
Клиническое исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Wakabayashi Yuka, Higashide Tomomi, Sugiyama Kazuhisa
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To examine the effects of multiple intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements on the correlation of response to glaucoma medication between fellow eyes.
METHODS: Latanoprost was applied to the first eye and then to both eyes of 16 patients with either primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. IOP measurements were performed twice on different days for each of three periods: at baseline, during treatment of the first eye only and for both eyes. IOP decreases in the first and second eyes were evaluated with ∆IOP 1 (=IOP at baseline - IOP after treatment) and ∆IOP 2 (=∆IOP 1 - IOP fluctuation of the contralateral eye). The correlation of IOP decreases between the fellow eyes was analyzed by linear regression analysis using the Pearson correlation coefficient, r.
RESULTS: No significant correlations of ∆IOP1 between fellow eyes were found regardless of the number of IOP measurements. ∆IOP2 was significantly correlated between fellow eyes using two post-treatment IOP measurements, but not with a single post-treatment IOP.
CONCLUSIONS: Using multiple post-treatment IOP measurements may improve the prediction of a fellow eye's response to glaucoma medication in one-eye trials.
METHODS: Latanoprost was applied to the first eye and then to both eyes of 16 patients with either primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. IOP measurements were performed twice on different days for each of three periods: at baseline, during treatment of the first eye only and for both eyes. IOP decreases in the first and second eyes were evaluated with ∆IOP 1 (=IOP at baseline - IOP after treatment) and ∆IOP 2 (=∆IOP 1 - IOP fluctuation of the contralateral eye). The correlation of IOP decreases between the fellow eyes was analyzed by linear regression analysis using the Pearson correlation coefficient, r.
RESULTS: No significant correlations of ∆IOP1 between fellow eyes were found regardless of the number of IOP measurements. ∆IOP2 was significantly correlated between fellow eyes using two post-treatment IOP measurements, but not with a single post-treatment IOP.
CONCLUSIONS: Using multiple post-treatment IOP measurements may improve the prediction of a fellow eye's response to glaucoma medication in one-eye trials.