SynthesisScientific reports2026
Efficacy and safety of pilocarpine for the treatment of presbyopia: a systematic review and meta‑analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Pilocarpine, the first Food and Drug Administration-approved ophthalmic solution for presbyopia treatment, has garnered substantial attention owing to its therapeutic efficacy and safety profile. This meta-analysis systematically evaluated the effectiveness and safety of pilocarpine in managing presbyopia.Relevant literature published before April 1, 2025 can be retrieved from Web of Science, Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Library. After screening, extract baseline features and outcome data for inclusion in the study. Finally, a meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA) were conducted.Five randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in this meta-analysis. The meta-analysis demonstrated that pilocarpine significantly increased the number of participants who achieved a mesopic distance-corrected near visual acuity (DCNVA) gain of ≥ 3 lines at 1 h (relative risk [RR]: 1.99, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.55-2.56), 2 h (RR: 2.08, 95% CI 1.61-2.69), 3 h (RR: 4.30, 95% CI 2.84-6.52), 6 h (RR: 2.02, 95% CI 1.59-2.56), and 8 h (RR: 1.77, 95% CI 1.37-2.28), compared to controls. However, pilocarpine significantly increased the risk of participants experiencing ≥ 1 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), blurred vision, visual impairment, eye pain, headache, and nausea (P < 0.05) but had no significant effect on conjunctival hyperemia and instillation site pain (P > 0.05). TSA revealed conclusive results for mesopic DCNVA gain of ≥ 3 lines, participants with ≥ 1 TEAEs, blurred vision, visual impairment, and nausea. Except for eye pain (P = 0.010), the remaining outcomes showed no potential publication bias (P > 0.05). The evidence quality for DCNVA gain of ≥ 3 lines was rated as moderate, while that for safety outcomes ranged from very low to moderate.In conclusion, pilocarpine improves visual function in patients with presbyopia; however, it may increase the risk of adverse events. Owing to the limited sample size, these findings warrant further validation through large-scale multicenter RCTs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.