Paper Details

  1. Home
  2. Paper Details

A single-blind randomised trial comparing adrenaline 1.0% with dipivalyl epinephrine (propine) 0.1% in the treatment of open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension.

Author: JacobsN A, MillsK B

Comparative StudyResearch that compares multiple groups/interventions to determine differences/similarities in outcomes/characteristics.
Clinical TrialA clinical trial is a planned study conducted on humans to evaluate the efficacy and safety of pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and treatment methods. It aims to explore the possibilities of new treatments and improve the health of patients.
Journal ArticleAn article published in an academic or professional journal that reports original research or scholarly analysis.
Randomized Controlled TrialA clinical trial that randomly assigns participants to treatment and control groups to evaluate the effects of an intervention.

Overview

Both adrenaline 1% and dipivalyl epinephrine (Propine) 0.1% lowered intraocular pressure in patients with open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension. However, the effect was not significant enough to warrant their use as a first-line treatment. Side effects were reported in 60% of patients receiving Propine and 66% of those receiving adrenaline.
Paper Details　
Original Abstract of the Article :
The results of this single-blind randomised trial comparing adrenaline 1% with dipivalyl epinephrine (Propine) 0.1% confirm that both have a significant effect in lowering the intraocular pressure in patients with open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension, but it is generally insufficient to warra...See full text at original site
Dr.Camel IconDr.Camel's Paper Summary Blogラクダ博士について

ラクダ博士は、Health Journal が論文の内容を分かりやすく解説するために作成した架空のキャラクターです。
難解な医学論文を、専門知識のない方にも理解しやすいように、噛み砕いて説明することを目指しています。

* ラクダ博士による解説は、あくまで論文の要点をまとめたものであり、原論文の完全な代替となるものではありません。詳細な内容については、必ず原論文をご参照ください。
* ラクダ博士は架空のキャラクターであり、実際の医学研究者や医療従事者とは一切関係がありません。
* 解説の内容は Health Journal が独自に解釈・作成したものであり、原論文の著者または出版社の見解を反映するものではありません。


引用元：
https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.72.6.465

データ提供：米国国立医学図書館（NLM）

Comparing Adrenaline and Dipivalyl Epinephrine for Glaucoma Treatment

The field of [ophthalmology] is dedicated to preserving [eye health] and improving the lives of patients with conditions like [open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension]. This research compares the efficacy of [adrenaline 1%] and [dipivalyl epinephrine (Propine) 0.1%] in lowering intraocular pressure. The study, a [single-blind randomized trial], aimed to determine which treatment is more effective in managing these conditions.

Similar Efficacy, Shared Side Effects

Both [adrenaline 1%] and [dipivalyl epinephrine (Propine) 0.1%] demonstrated significant effects in lowering intraocular pressure. However, the study found no significant difference in efficacy between the two preparations. Additionally, both treatments resulted in side effects in a substantial portion of patients.

Navigating Glaucoma Treatment: A Team Effort

While these drugs show promise, the research suggests that they may not be the first-line treatment for [open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension]. It's important to consult with an ophthalmologist to determine the best course of action for managing your eye health. Working together, you and your doctor can find the most appropriate treatment approach for your individual needs.

Dr.Camel's Conclusion

This study is like a camel crossing a vast desert, where both paths seem equally challenging. While both [adrenaline 1%] and [dipivalyl epinephrine (Propine) 0.1%] offer relief, it's crucial to weigh the benefits against the potential side effects. Ultimately, the journey to healthy vision requires a collaborative effort between the patient and their ophthalmologist, ensuring that the chosen treatment is tailored to their unique needs.

Date :
  1. Date Completed 1988-08-12
  2. Date Revised 2019-05-01
Further Info :

Pubmed ID

3291940

DOI: Digital Object Identifier

10.1136/bjo.72.6.465

SNS
PICO Info
in preparation
Languages

English

Positive IndicatorAn AI analysis index that serves as a benchmark for how positive the results of the study are. Note that it is a benchmark and requires careful interpretation and consideration of different perspectives.

This site uses cookies. Visit our privacy policy page or click the link in any footer for more information and to change your preferences.