Results: 3

1.
Fig 1

Fig 1. From: Treatment of ocular hypertension and open angle glaucoma: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Trial flow shows the number of trials screened, retrieved for evaluation, and included in the analysis

Philip C Maier, et al. BMJ. 2005 July 16;331(7509):134-134.
2.
Fig 2

Fig 2. From: Treatment of ocular hypertension and open angle glaucoma: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Visual field loss or deterioration of optic disc, or both, among patients randomised to pressure lowering treatment v no treatment in ocular hypertension. Hazard ratios of less than 1.0 favour pressure lowering treatment. Boxed area is proportional to weight given to each trial in the statistical model. Heterogeneity: χ2 = 6.2 (P=0.185); I2 = 35.4% (95% confidence interval 0 to 75.8%)

Philip C Maier, et al. BMJ. 2005 July 16;331(7509):134-134.
3.
Fig 3

Fig 3. From: Treatment of ocular hypertension and open angle glaucoma: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Visual field loss or deterioration of optic disc, or both, among patients randomised to pressure lowering treatment v no treatment in open angle glaucoma (panel A). Panel B shows subgroup analysis of data in normal tension glaucoma. Hazard ratios of less than 1.0 favour pressure lowering treatment. Boxed area is proportional to weight given to each trial in the statistical model. Heterogeneity: χ2 = 0.13 (P=0.72) for open angle glaucoma and χ2 = 0.001 (P=0.97) for normal tension glaucoma

Philip C Maier, et al. BMJ. 2005 July 16;331(7509):134-134.

Supplemental Content

Recent activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...
Write to the Help Desk