The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Prevalence of ocular symptoms and signs with preserved and preservative free glaucoma medication
Open accessAbstract
AIM: To determine the incidence of ocular toxicity of preservatives with glaucoma medications. METHODS: A prospective epidemiological survey was carried out in 1999 by 249 ophthalmologists on 4107 patients. Ocular symptoms, conjunctiva, cornea, and eyelids were assessed. A chi(2) test was used for differences between preserved eye drops (P) and preservative free eye drops (PF). RESULTS: 84% patients used P, 13% received PF, and 3% a combination of P and PF eye drops. All symptoms were more prevalent with P than with PF drops (p<0.001): discomfort upon instillation (43% versus 17%), and symptoms between instillations such as burning-stinging (40% versus 22%), foreign body sensation (31% versus 14%), dry eye sensation (23% versus 14%), tearing (21% versus 14%), and eyelid itching (18% versus 10%). An increased incidence (>2 times) of ocular signs was seen with P eye drops. The prevalence of signs and symptoms was dose dependent, increasing with the number of P drops. A reduction in the symptoms and signs was observed when patients changed from P to PF eye drops (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Symptoms and signs are less prevalent when PF drops are used. Moreover, most of the adverse reactions induced by P glaucoma medication are reversible after removing preservatives.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
TFOS DEWS II Diagnostic Methodology report
Wolffsohn, J. S., Arita, R., Chalmers, R., Djalilian, A., Dogru, M., Dumbleton, K., Gupta, P. K., Karpecki, P., Lazreg, S., Pult, H., et al. (2017) · The Ocular Surface · doi:10.1016/j.jtos.2017.05.001 · Cited by 2,122
Preservatives in eyedrops: The good, the bad and the ugly
Baudouin, C., Labbé, A., Liang, H., Pauly, A., & Brignole-Baudouin, F. (2010) · Progress in Retinal and Eye Research · doi:10.1016/j.preteyeres.2010.03.001 · Cited by 1,084
Pisella, P.-J. (2004) · Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science · doi:10.1167/iovs.03-1067 · Cited by 287
Self-citationTseng, C.-L., Hung, Y.-J., Chen, Z.-Y., Fang, H.-W., & Chen, K.-H. (2016) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0157982 · Cited by 53
Halder, A., & Khopade, A. J. (2020) · Clinical ophthalmology · doi:10.2147/opth.s266453 · Cited by 12
Metadata
- Authors
- Pisella, P. J.
- Venue
- British Journal of Ophthalmology
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2002-04-01
- Volume
- 86
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 418-423
- ISSN
- 0007-1161 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2162316179
- Cited by
- 618
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 5.24
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Prevalence of ocular symptoms and signs with preserved and preservative free glaucoma medication. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bjo.86.4.418
- The paper
- Pisella, P. J. (2002). Prevalence of ocular symptoms and signs with preserved and preservative free glaucoma medication. British Journal of Ophthalmology. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.86.4.418
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.