Review Article

Analysis of the Responsiveness of Latanoprost, Travoprost, Bimatoprost, and Tafluprost in the Treatment of OAG/OHT Patients

Table 9

Safety analysis for PGAs.

Number of trialsBIM (N)TRA (N)LAT (N)TAF (N)RR (95%CI)Test for heterogeneityTest for overall effect

Conjunctival hyperemiaBIM vs. LAT3272027602.556 (1.844, 3.542)Q = 1.87, Z = 5.63,
BIM vs. TRA2180180001.471 (0.676, 3.200)Q = 0.22, Z = 0.97,
TAF vs. LAT2001741751.779 (1.057, 2.995)Q = 0.78, Z = 2.17,

BurningBIM vs. LAT1133013601.169 (0.436, 3.132)N.A.Z = 0.31,
TAF vs. LAT2001741750.990 (0.151, 6.477)Q = 4.87, Z = 001,

Foreign body sensationBIM vs. TRA2180180000.325 (0.034, 3.080)Q = 0.00, Z = 0.98,
TAF vs. LAT2001741750.497 (0.174, 1.425)Q = 0.63, Z = 1.30,

HypertrichosisBIM vs. LAT2257026100.562 (0.002, 160.502)Q = 12.79, Z = 0.20,
BIM vs. TRA1131135005.152 (0.250, 106.293)N.A.Z = 1.06,

ItchingBIM vs. LAT1133013600.345 (0.115, 1.031)N.A.Z = 1.90,
BIM vs. TRA2180180001.304 (0.301, 5.641)Q = 1.31, Z = 0.35,
TAF vs. LAT20073740.985 (0.349, 2.775)Q = 0.59, Z = 0.035,

BIM: bimatoprost, TRA: travoprost, LAT: latanoprost, TAF: tafluprost.