Review Article
Analysis of the Responsiveness of Latanoprost, Travoprost, Bimatoprost, and Tafluprost in the Treatment of OAG/OHT Patients
Table 3
Responsiveness of PGAs in OAG/OHT.
| | | Number of trials | BIM (N) | TRA (N) | LAT (N) | TAF (N) | RR (95%CI) | Test for heterogeneity | Test for overall effect |
| | BIM vs. LAT | 2 | 257 | 0 | 261 | 0 | 1.301 (0.711, 2.380) | Q = 19.23, | Z = 0.85, | | BIM vs. TRA | 1 | 47 | 44 | 0 | 0 | 1.208 (0.964, 1.514) | N. A | Z = 1.64, | | TAF vs. LAT | 3 | 0 | 0 | 193 | 186 | 1.101 (0.973, 1.245) | Q = 2.32, | Z = 1.52, | | TAF vs. TRA | 1 | 0 | 90 | 0 | 90 | 1.081 (0.771, 1.516) | N. A | Z = 0.45, |
|
|
BIM: bimatoprost, TRA: travoprost, LAT: latanoprost, TAF: tafluprost. |
