This review included 12 studies (n=3,048): 8 double-blind trials (n=2,517) and 4 single-blind trials (n=531).
Of the 12 trials, seven clearly reported their allocation concealment and all detailed withdrawals and drop-outs. Eight reported using intention-to-treat analysis but only five appeared to have used a sample size calculation. Publication bias was to have been assessed using a funnel plot; however, this was not carried out because of the small number of included studies.
The meta-analysis found that travoprost (0.004%) was significantly more effective at lowering IOP than timolol (0.5%); the WMD was -0.81 (95% confidence interval, CI: -1.16, 0.45, p≤0.01). Travoprost (0.004%) was also more effective than unoprostone (0.12%) in lowering IOP. There was no evidence of a significant benefit of travoprost when compared with bimatoprost (0.03%) or latanoprost (0.005%). Comparing two dosages, 0.004% travoprost was significantly better at reducing IOP than 0.0015% travoprost (WMD -0.32, 95% CI: -0.62, -0.02, p=0.04).
Data on side-effects were presented in full. To summarise, the overall incidence of side-effects was lower with timolol than with travoprost. Travoprost 0.004% caused a higher percentage of ocular hyperaemia, iris pigmentation and eyelash changes. Travoprost also caused higher rates of hyperaemia in comparison with latanoprost.