The DOI matches its Crossref record; 23 of the 24 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparison of once- or twice-daily bimatoprost with twice-daily timolol in patients with elevated IOP
Abstract
Objective To compare the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of bimatoprost 0.03% instilled once daily or twice daily with timolol 0.5% twice daily. Design Multicenter, 3-month, randomized, double-masked, interventional comparison trial. Participants Patients diagnosed with ocular hypertension or glaucoma (n = 596). Intervention Patients received bimatoprost 0.03% ophthalmic solution once daily (8 PM, with vehicle control at 8 AM), bimatoprost 0.03% twice daily (8 AM; 8 PM), or timolol 0.5% twice daily (8 AM; 8 PM) in an uneven 2:2:1 randomization. Scheduled visits were at prestudy, baseline (day 0), weeks 2 and 6, and month 3. Intraocular pressure (IOP) was measured at 8 AM (predose), 10 AM, and 4 PM. Main outcome measures The primary outcome measure was reduction in IOP in the eye with higher IOP at baseline. Secondary outcome measures included safety variables (adverse events, ophthalmoscopy, biomicroscopy, iris pigmentation, laser-flare meter, visual acuity, visual fields, heart rate, blood pressure, blood chemistry, hematology, and urinalysis). Results At month 3, the mean reduction in IOP from baseline at 8 AM was 9.16 mmHg (35.2%) with bimatoprost once daily, 7.78 mmHg (30.4%) with bimatoprost twice daily, and 6.74 mmHg (26.2%) with timolol twice daily. At all follow-up visits, mean IOP reductions were significantly greater in the bimatoprost once daily group than in the timolol group at each time point (8 AM, 10 AM, and 4 PM; P < 0.001). Twice-daily dosing of bimatoprost also provided significantly greater mean reductions in IOP than timolol at most time points but was not as effective as once-daily dosing. Bimatoprost was associated with significantly more hyperemia and eyelash growth than timolol, whereas timolol was associated with significantly more burning and stinging sensation in eyes. Overall, bimatoprost was well tolerated with few discontinuations because of adverse events. Conclusions Bimatoprost 0.03% once daily was safe and statistically superior to timolol 0.5% twice daily in lowering IOP in patients with ocular hypertension or glaucoma. Bimatoprost given once daily consistently provided IOP reductions approximately 2 to 3 mmHg greater than those provided by timolol. Once-daily dosing of bimatoprost, 0.03%, demonstrated greater IOP-lowering effect and better ocular tolerability than twice-daily dosing.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Eyelash growth was noted as an adverse effect of bimatoprost use in clinical trials of patients with glaucoma and ocular hypertension [9, 10, 12, 13], an effect thought to arise by the interaction of bimatoprost with prostamide-sensitive receptors in hair follicles [14].”
From Bimatoprost for Eyelash Growth in Japanese Subjects: Two Multicenter Controlled Studies (2014) · cites this paper as [12]
Citations
Cites
Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions.
Everitt, B. S., & Fleiss, J. L. (1981) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2530193 · Cited by 9,034
Rank transformations as a bridge between parametric and nonparametric statistics
Conover, W. J., & Iman, R. L. (1981) · The American Statistician · doi:10.1080/00031305.1981.10479327 · Cited by 3,922
Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions, 2nd ed
GROVE, W. A. (1981) · American Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1176/ajp.138.12.1644-a · Cited by 3,756
Nonparametrics: Statistical Methods Based on Ranks
Mergenthaler, M. J., & Lehmann, E. L. (1979) · Technometrics · doi:10.2307/1268531 · Cited by 3,353
Nonparametrics: Statistical Methods Based on Ranks.
Beaver, R. J., & Lehmann, E. L. (1976) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2529529 · Cited by 2,067
Alm, A., & Stjernschantz, J. (1995) · Ophthalmology · doi:10.1016/s0161-6420(95)30798-1 · Cited by 500
Comparison of Latanoprost and Timolol in Patients with Ocular Hypertension and Glaucoma
Camras, C. B. (1996) · Ophthalmology · doi:10.1016/s0161-6420(96)30749-5 · Cited by 494
Watson, P. G., & Stjernschantz, J. (1996) · Ophthalmology · doi:10.1016/s0161-6420(96)30750-1 · Cited by 449
Synthesis of Prostaglandin E2 Ethanolamide from Anandamide by Cyclooxygenase-2
Yu, M., Ives, D., & Ramesha, C. S. (1997) · Journal of Biological Chemistry · doi:10.1074/jbc.272.34.21181 · Cited by 407
Why Do Some People Go Blind from Glaucoma?
Grant, W. M., & Burke, J. F. (1982) · Ophthalmology · doi:10.1016/s0161-6420(82)34675-8 · Cited by 390
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Kass, 1989, Timolol treatment prevents or delays glaucomatous visual field loss in individuals with ocular hypertension, Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc, 87, 598
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Parrish, R. K., II, Palmberg, P. F., & Sheu, W.-P. (2003) · American Journal of Ophthalmology · doi:10.1016/s0002-9394(03)00098-9 · Cited by 473
Intraocular Pressure–Lowering Effects of All Commonly Used Glaucoma Drugs
van der Valk, R., Webers, C. A. B., Schouten, J., Zeegers, M. P., Hendrikse, F., & Prins, M. H. (2005) · Ophthalmology · doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2005.01.042 · Cited by 448
Noecker, R. S., Dirks, M. S., Choplin, N. T., Bernstein, P., Batoosingh, A. L., & Whitcup, S. M. (2002) · American Journal of Ophthalmology · doi:10.1016/s0002-9394(02)01827-5 · Cited by 319
Self-citationThe Pharmacology of Bimatoprost (Lumigan™)
Woodward, D. F., Krauss, A. H. ‐., Chen, J., LAI, R. K., Spada, C. S., Burk, R. M., Andrews, S. W., Shi, L., Liang, Y., Kedzie, K. M., et al. (2001) · Survey of Ophthalmology · doi:10.1016/s0039-6257(01)00224-7 · Cited by 221
One-Year, Randomized Study Comparing Bimatoprost and Timolol in Glaucoma and Ocular Hypertension
Higginbotham, E. J. (2002) · Archives of Ophthalmology · doi:10.1001/archopht.120.10.1286 · Cited by 199
Metadata
- Authors
- Brandt, J. D., VanDenburgh, A. M., Chen, K., & Whitcup, S. M.
- Affiliations
- University of California, Davis (US)
- Allergan (United States) (US)
- Corresponding author
- Brandt, James D
- Venue
- Ophthalmology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2001-06
- Volume
- 108
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1023-1031
- ISSN
- 0161-6420 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2138342502
- Cited by
- 152
- References
- 24
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 16.08
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Ophthalmology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Ophthalmology › Glaucoma and retinal disorders
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Ophthalmology › Drug-Induced Ocular Toxicity
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Blood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
- Keywords
- bimatoprost, timolol, intraocular pressure, ocular hypertension, glaucoma, once-daily dosing, twice-daily dosing, beta-blockers, prostamide, hyperemia, eyelash growth, drug safety and tolerability, intraocular pressure reduction, visual acuity, heart rate, blood pressure, adverse events, iris pigmentation
- MeSH terms
- Bimatoprost, Adult, Amides, Antihypertensive Agents, Cloprostenol, Double-Blind Method, Drug Administration Schedule, Female, Glaucoma, Hemodynamics, Humans, Intraocular Pressure, Lipids, Male, Middle Aged, Ocular Hypertension, Ophthalmic Solutions, Safety, Timolol, Visual Acuity, Visual Fields, Treatment Outcome
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
