ArticlePloS one2015
Clinical Outcomes of FP-7/8 Ahmed Glaucoma Valves in the Management of Refractory Glaucoma in the Mainland Chinese Population.
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Primary implantation of glaucoma drainage device in secondary glaucoma: Comparison of Aurolab aqueous drainage implant versus Ahmed glaucoma valve.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Factors associated with the surgical outcomes of Baerveldt glaucoma implant for open-angle glaucoma, an age-related eye disease.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Outcomes of Ahmed glaucoma valve FP8 versus FP7 in adult secondary glaucoma.International ophthalmology · 2020Article
- Long-term clinical outcomes of Ahmed valve implantation in patients with refractory glaucoma.PloS one · 2017Article
- The Choice of Drainage Device in Complicated Glaucomas: Comparing Ahmed and Baerveldt Implants.In vivo (Athens, Greece)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of the Ahmed glaucoma valve (AGV) and the risk factors associated with AGV implantation failure in a population of Chinese patients with refractory glaucoma.
methodIn total, 79 eyes with refractory glaucoma from 79 patients treated in our institution from November 2007 to November 2010 were enrolled in this retrospective study. The demographic data, preoperative and postoperative intraocular pressures (IOPs), best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), number of anti-glaucoma medications used, completed and qualified surgery success rates and postoperative complications were recorded to evaluate the outcomes of AGV implantation. Factors that were associated with implant failure were determined using Cox proportional hazard regression model analysis and multiple linear regression analysis. PRINCIPLE
findingsThe average follow-up time was 12.7±5.8 months (mean±SD). We observed a significant reduction in the mean IOP from 39.9±12.6 mm Hg before surgery to 19.3±9.6 mm Hg at the final follow-up. The complete success rate was 59.5%, and the qualified success rate was 83.5%. The number of previous surgeries was negatively correlated with qualified success rate (P<0.05, OR=0.736, 95% CI 0.547-0.99). Patients with previous trabeculectomy were more likely to use multiple anti-glaucoma drugs to control IOP (P<0.01). The primary complication was determined to be a flat anterior chamber (AC).
conclusionAGV implantation was safe and effective for the management of refractory glaucoma. Patients with a greater number of previous surgeries were more likely to experience surgical failure, and patients with previous trabeculectomy were more likely to use multiple anti-glaucoma drugs to control postoperative IOP.
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.