ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2012
A new manner of reporting pressure results after glaucoma surgery.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A new classification of glaucomas.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate to what extent contemporary glaucoma abstracts offer complete information and to suggest a new manner of pressure results reporting. MATERIALS, METHODS, AND
resultsMost of the 36 relevant surgical glaucoma abstracts found in one issue of International Glaucoma Review contain insufficient data-supported statements. Such abstracts cannot offer a clear picture of the study essence if economic, linguistic, or political barriers prevent access to the full text. In order to enrich abstract content and to avoid typographic space waste, a formula is suggested to provide, in one single line of symbols and figures, all the necessary data for statistical interpretation at two evolution moments: the first significative control (6 months) and the final one.
conclusionThe current manner of results reporting in surgical glaucoma abstracts is subject to too little standardization, allowing insufficiently data-supported statements. Abstracts, especially those printed in small-circulation language journals, should be conceived and standardized in such a manner that any abstract review reader is capable of grasping the essence of the study at first glance. The suggested manner of reporting results would bring satisfaction to all areas of the process. Publishers would save typographic space, readers would find all the necessary data for statistical analysis and comparison with other studies, and authors would be convinced that the essence of their work would penetrate in spite of any economic, linguistic, or political barriers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.