View PowerPoint Presentation - Vision Research Coordinating Center

More documents

Recommendations

Info

StrengthsJune, 20021. Large sample size2. Careful follow-up3. Masked assessment of endpoints4. Attribution of endpoints to cause by maskedcommittee5. Inclusion of all commercially available drugs6. Careful quality control and feedback totechnicians and photographers7. True-incidence cases
Weaknesses1. Convenience sample rather than populationbased2. Relatively small number of POAG endpoints3. Healthy volunteers4. Limited IOP range5. Limited to patients with reliable visual fields6. “Squeaky clean” participants at baseline7. High thresholds for endpointsJune, 20028. Some risk factors under-represented
Page 1 and 2: The Ocular HypertensionTreatment St
Page 3 and 4: Why did we do this study?Don’t we
Page 5 and 6: Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study
Page 7 and 8: Patient found eligible for OHTS•
Page 9 and 10: Baseline Characteristics by Randomi
Page 15 and 16: IOP By RaceMedicationObservationAfr
Page 17 and 18: Progress and Outcome of Study Parti
Page 19 and 20: Proportion POAG1 st Visual Field PO
Page 21 and 22: First POAG Endpoint per Participant
Page 23 and 24: Treatment perhaps less protectivein
Page 25 and 26: Percent Reporting Changes inIris, L
Page 27 and 28: Borderline Safety DifferencesBetwee
Page 29 and 30: Significant Baseline Predictive Fac
Page 31 and 32: Significant Baseline Predictive Fac
Page 33 and 34: POAG Endpoints by Central Corneal T
Page 35 and 36: 60-year-old WF IOP 24 / 24 C/D rati
Page 37 and 38: 60-year-old WF IOP 28 / 28 C/D rati
Page 39: 72-year-old BM IOP 25 / 25 C/D rati
Page 43 and 44: Possible Misinterpretations of OHTS
Page 45: OHTS Clinical CentersBascom Palmer

View PowerPoint Presentation - Vision Research Coordinating Center

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?