PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 8846250

Decrease of optic disc cupping and pallor of ocular hypertensives with timolol therapy.

B Schwartz·P Lavin·T Takamoto·D F Araujo·G Smits
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether timolol drops compared to placebo drops had a significant effect on optic disc cupping and pallor in ocular hypertensives. METHODS: Thirty-seven ocular hypertensives were randomly assigned to placebo or 0.5% timolol drops to both eyes in a double masked clinical trial. Measurements of ocular pressure and photographs of the optic disc for cupping by photogrammetry and pallor by computerized image analysis were made at about 3 month intervals, for 18 to 24 months of follow-up. RESULTS: None of the subjects developed visual field loss when tested with the Goldmann perimeter by kinetic and static means at six month intervals. Subjects treated with timolol developed a significant decrease in ocular pressure and a significant decrease in optic disc cupping with a smaller decrease in pallor compared to subject treated with placebo. Multivariate analyses indicated that the decrease of optic disc cupping and pallor was not associated with the ocular pressure on treatment or the decrease in ocular pressure during the trial. CONCLUSION: Timolol treatment was associated with a decrease in optic disc cupping and pallor. The effect of timolol appears to be related to mechanisms other than the decrease in ocular pressure.

Explore related subjects

Double-Blind MethodFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedIntraocular PressureLongitudinal StudiesMaleMiddle AgedModels, BiologicalMultivariate AnalysisOcular HypertensionOptic DiskPhotographyTimololTreatment OutcomeClinical TrialJournal ArticleRandomized Controlled TrialResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov'tResearch Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

B Schwartz, P Lavin, T Takamoto, D F Araujo, G Smits. 1995. Decrease of optic disc cupping and pallor of ocular hypertensives with timolol therapy.. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0420.1995.tb00588.x

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2001

Low molecular weight heparin and unfractionated heparin in thrombosis prophylaxis: meta-analysis based on original patient data.

A meta-analysis (MA) based on original patient data has been performed comparing low molecular weight heparins (LMWH) with unfractionated heparin (UFH) in thrombosis prophylaxis after major surgical interventions. The analyses have been done for the following prespecified groups of studies: all studies, studies in orthopaedic surgery (OS) and studies in general surgery (GS, with further separation into low-dose studies [GS-LD] and high-dose studies [GS-HD]). Deep vein thrombosis (DVT, all locations) and wound haematoma were used as primary endpoints for efficacy and safety, respectively. The analysis confirms the results of previous publication-based meta-analyses. In GS there is no relevant difference between LMWH and UFH regarding efficacy; the safety results strongly depend on the dosage: under low-dose LMWH the risk of wound haematoma is significantly lower, under high-dose LMWH it is significantly higher than under UFH. However, most of the studies in the last group used regimens of LMWH that are not considered appropriate any more. In OS there is a trend towards a better efficacy and safety of LMWH. In addition, LMWHs are superior to UFH, in OS, with respect to the secondary endpoints proximal DVT and pulmonary embolism. The rates of proximal DVT and pulmonary embolism, respectively, are consistently lower under LMWH than under UFH, whereas slightly smaller rates of distal DVT are observed under UFH.

Double-Blind Method↗
PubMed2001

Physician interpretations and textbook definitions of blinding terminology in randomized controlled trials.

CONTEXT: When clinicians assess the validity of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), they commonly evaluate the blinding status of individuals in the RCT. The terminology authors often use to convey blinding status (single, double, and triple blinding) may be open to various interpretations. OBJECTIVE: To determine physician interpretations and textbook definitions of RCT blinding terms. DESIGN AND SETTING: Observational study undertaken at 3 Canadian university tertiary care centers between February and May 1999. PARTICIPANTS: Ninety-one internal medicine physicians who responded to a survey. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Respondents identified which of the following groups they thought were blinded in single-, double-, and triple-blinded RCTs: participants, health care providers, data collectors, judicial assessors of outcomes, data analysts, and personnel who write the article. Definitions from 25 systematically identified textbooks published since 1990 providing definitions for single, double, or triple blinding. RESULTS: Physician respondents identified 10, 17, and 15 unique interpretations of single, double, and triple blinding, respectively, and textbooks provided 5, 9, and 7 different definitions of each. The frequencies of the most common physician interpretation and textbook definition were 75% (95% confidence interval [CI], 65%-83%) and 74% (95% CI, 52%-90%) for single blinding, 38% (95% CI, 28%-49%) and 43% (95% CI, 24%-63%) for double blinding, and 18% (95% CI, 10%-28%) and 14% (95% CI, 0%-58%) for triple blinding, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that both physicians and textbooks vary greatly in their interpretations and definitions of single, double, and triple blinding. Explicit statements about the blinding status of specific groups involved in RCTs should replace the current ambiguous terminology.

Double-Blind Method↗
PubMed2001

Glucosamine therapy for treating osteoarthritis.

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common form of arthritis, and it is often associated with significant disability and an impaired quality of life. OBJECTIVES: To review all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effectiveness and toxicity of glucosamine in osteoarthritis (OA). SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Current Contents up to November 1999, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register. We also wrote letters to content experts, and hand searched reference lists of identified RCTs and pertinent review articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Relevant studies met the following criteria: 1) RCTs evaluating the effectiveness and safety of glucosamine in OA, 2) Both placebo based and comparative studies were eligible, 3) Both single blinded and double-blinded studies were eligible. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data abstraction was performed independently by two investigators and the results were compared for degree of agreement. Gotzsche's method and a validated tool (Jadad 1995) were used to score the quality of the RCTs. Continuous outcome measures were pooled using standardized mean differences. Dichotomous outcome measures were pooled using Peto Odds Ratios. MAIN RESULTS: Collectively, the 16 identified RCTs provided evidence that glucosamine is both effective and safe in OA. In the 13 RCTs in which glucosamine was compared to placebo, glucosamine was found to be superior in all RCTs, except one. In the four RCTs in which glucosamine was compared to an NSAID, glucosamine was superior in two, and equivalent in two. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Further research is necessary to confirm the long term effectiveness and toxicity of glucosamine therapy in OA. Most of the trials reviewed only evaluated the Rotta preparation of glucosamine sulfate. It is not known whether different glucosamine preparations prepared by different manufacturers are equally effective in the therapy of OA.

Double-Blind Method↗