Intraocular pressure-lowering effects of all commonly used glaucoma drugs: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

[1]  J. Schouten,et al.  Noncompliance with ocular hypotensive treatment in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension an evidence-based review. , 2005, Ophthalmology.

[2]  Vance W Berger,et al.  Ensuring the comparability of comparison groups: is randomization enough? , 2004, Controlled clinical trials.

[3]  Anastasia Ivanova,et al.  Minimizing predictability while retaining balance through the use of less restrictive randomization procedures , 2003, Statistics in medicine.

[4]  R. Parrish,et al.  A comparison of latanoprost, bimatoprost, and travoprost in patients with elevated intraocular pressure: a 12-week, randomized, masked-evaluator multicenter study. , 2003, American journal of ophthalmology.

[5]  V. Berger,et al.  Randomization Technique, Allocation Concealment, Masking, And Susceptibility Of Trials To Selection Bias , 2003 .

[6]  Vance W Berger,et al.  When can a clinical trial be called 'randomized'? , 2003, Vaccine.

[7]  S. Whitcup,et al.  A randomised, double masked, multicentre clinical trial comparing bimatoprost and timolol for the treatment of glaucoma and ocular hypertension , 2003, The British journal of ophthalmology.

[8]  P. Fellenbaum,et al.  A six-month randomized clinical trial comparing the intraocular pressure-lowering efficacy of bimatoprost and latanoprost in patients with ocular hypertension or glaucoma , 2003 .

[9]  J. Schuman,et al.  One-year, randomized study comparing bimatoprost and timolol in glaucoma and ocular hypertension. , 2002, Archives of ophthalmology.

[10]  A. Kampik,et al.  Intraocular Pressure-Lowering Effects of Latanoprost and Brimonidine Therapy in Patients With Open-Angle Glaucoma or Ocular Hypertension: A Randomized Observer-Masked Multicenter Study , 2002, Journal of glaucoma.

[11]  P. Netland,et al.  Travoprost compared with latanoprost and timolol in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. , 2001, American journal of ophthalmology.

[12]  H. Dua,et al.  Meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials comparing latanoprost with timolol in the treatment of patients with open angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension , 2001, The British journal of ophthalmology.

[13]  J. Brandt,et al.  Comparison of once- or twice-daily bimatoprost with twice-daily timolol in patients with elevated IOP : a 3-month clinical trial. , 2001, Ophthalmology.

[14]  W. C. Stewart,et al.  Efficacy and safety of bimatoprost in patients with elevated intraocular pressure: a 30-day comparison with latanoprost. , 2001, Survey of ophthalmology.

[15]  T. Einarson,et al.  Meta-analysis of the effect of latanoprost and brimonidine on intraocular pressure in the treatment of glaucoma. , 2000, Clinical therapeutics.

[16]  K. Sall.  The Efficacy and Safety of Brinzolamide 1% Ophthalmic Suspension (Azopt®) as a Primary Therapy in Patients With Open-Angle Glaucoma or Ocular Hypertension , 2000 .

[17]  D. Gieser,et al.  A randomized trial comparing the dorzolamide-timolol combination given twice daily to monotherapy with timolol and dorzolamide. , 1998, Ophthalmology.

[18]  M. V. Aquino,et al.  The Effect of Latanoprost vs Timolol on lntraocular Pressure in Patients with Glaucoma and Ocular Hypertension , 1999 .

[19]  H. Vet,et al.  The Delphi list: a criteria list for quality assessment of randomized clinical trials for conducting systematic reviews developed by Delphi consensus. , 1998, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[20]  George Davey Smith,et al.  meta-analysis bias in location and selection of studies , 1998 .

[21]  George Davey Smith,et al.  Meta-analysis: Principles and procedures , 1997, BMJ.

[22]  L M Bouter,et al.  Method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group for Spinal Disorders. , 1997, Spine.

[23]  G. Smith,et al.  Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test , 1997, BMJ.

[24]  H. Quigley.  Number of people with glaucoma worldwide. , 1996, The British journal of ophthalmology.

[25]  P. Sandford.  Completeness of reporting of trials published in languages other than English , 1996, The Lancet.

[26]  D. Moher,et al.  Completeness of reporting of trials published in languages other than English: implications for conduct and reporting of systematic reviews , 1996, The Lancet.

[27]  A R Jadad,et al.  Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? , 1996, Controlled clinical trials.

[28]  E. Strahlman,et al.  A double-masked, randomized 1-year study comparing dorzolamide (Trusopt), timolol, and betaxolol. International Dorzolamide Study Group. , 1995, Archives of ophthalmology.

[29]  G. Grégoire,et al.  Selecting the language of the publications included in a meta-analysis: is there a Tower of Babel bias? , 1995, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[30]  K. Dickersin,et al.  Factors influencing publication of research results. Follow-up of applications submitted to two institutional review boards. , 1992, JAMA.

[31]  P. Easterbrook,et al.  Publication bias in clinical research , 1991, The Lancet.

[32]  R. Ward,et al.  Betaxolol vs timolol. A six-month double-blind comparison. , 1986, Archives of ophthalmology.