Skip to main content
. 2022 Mar 22;22:130. doi: 10.1186/s12886-022-02348-4

Table 5.

Comparison of clinical characteristics of patients with VZV-positive and CMV-positive secondary glaucoma

Characteristics VZV-Positive
Patients (N = 13)
CMV-Positive
Patients (N = 25)
P Valuea
Age (years) 55.1 (45.0–65.2) 39.0 (33.4–44.6) .003*
Male gender 8 (61.5) 16 (64) 1.000
Laterality (right) 9 (69.2) 12 (48) .307
IOP (mm Hg) 32.2 (27.2–37.3) 29.0 (25.0–33.0) .015*
Cup-to-disc ratio 0.4 (0.3–0.6) 0.6 (0.5–0.6) .093
Corrected visual acuity
 logMAR 0.8 (0.4–1.3) 0.3 (0.01–0.6) .000*
 Decimal (minutes) 0.3 (0.1–0.4) 0.8 (0.6–0.9) .000*
KPs 13 (100) 25 (100) NA
Tyndall effect 10 (76.9) 3 (12) .000*
Iris depigmentation 13 (100) 20 (80) .144
Cataract 9 (69.2) 13 (52) .490
Medical treatment at the first visit
 Number of patients treated with antiglaucoma medication 12 (92.3) 15 (60) .060
 Number of antiglaucoma agents used simultaneously 2.4 (1.9–2.9) 1.0 (0.6–1.5) .001*
 Frequency of corticosteroid eye drop (times per day) 3.2 (2.7–3.6) 2.8 (2.5–3.1) .110
Surgical intervention 4 (30.8) 10 (40) .728

Data are expressed as mean (95% C.I) or number of patients (%)

KPs keratic precipitates, IOP intraocular pressure

aχ2 test or Fisher’s exact test was used to compare proportions between VZV-positive and CMV-positive secondary glaucoma; Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare continuous variables between VZV-positive and CMV-positive secondary glaucoma

*p < .05