Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30355865›Full record

Trial reportIndian journal of ophthalmology2018

A prospective randomized controlled study of Aurolab aqueous drainage implant versus Ahmed glaucoma valve in refractory glaucoma: A pilot study.

Shweta G Rathi, Natasha G Seth, Savleen Kaur, Faisal Thattaruthody, Sushmita Kaushik, Srishti Raj, Surinder S Pandav, Jagat Ram

Open access · diamondAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Indian journal of ophthalmology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Commentary: Aurolab aqueous drainage implant: Miles to go.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2022
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Commentary on: Glaucoma drainage devices: Boon or bane.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2019
    Article
  13. Intermediate-term outcome of Aurolab aqueous drainage implant in refractory glaucoma.Saudi journal of ophthalmology : official journal of the Saudi Ophthalmological Society
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Shweta G RathiAdvanced Eye Center, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.
Natasha G SethAdvanced Eye Center, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.
Savleen KaurAdvanced Eye Center, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.
Faisal ThattaruthodyAdvanced Eye Center, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.
Sushmita KaushikAdvanced Eye Center, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.
Srishti RajAdvanced Eye Center, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.
Surinder S PandavAdvanced Eye Center, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.
Jagat RamAdvanced Eye Center, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.
Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo study the efficacy of the Aurolab aqueous drainage implant (AADI) compared to Ahmed glaucoma valve (AGV) in patients with refractory glaucoma.

methodsThis was a prospective, randomized controlled trial. Thirty-eight adult patients (>18 years) scheduled for a glaucoma drainage device (GDD) were randomized into two groups to receive either AGV or AADI. Primary outcome measures: intraocular pressure (IOP) control and requirement of antiglaucoma medications; secondary outcome measures: final best correct visual acuity (log MAR), visual field (Visual field index [VFI], mean deviation [MD] and pattern standard deviation [PSD]), postoperative complications and additional interventions. Complete success was defined as IOP ≥5-≤18 mmHg without antiglaucoma medications/laser/additional glaucoma surgery or any vision threatening complications.

resultsThere were 19 age and sex-matched patients in each group. Both groups had comparable IOP before surgery (P = 0.61). The AGV group had significantly lower IOP compared to AADI group (7.05 ± 4.22 mmHg vs 17.90 ± 10.32 mmHg, P = <0.001) at 1 week. The mean postoperative IOP at 6 months was not significantly different in the two groups (13.3 ± 4.2 and 11.4 ± 6.8 mmHg respectively; P = 0.48). At 6 months, complete success rate according to antiglaucoma medication criteria was 78.94% in AADI and 47.36% in AGV groups. AGV group required 1.83 times more number of topical medications than AADI group. There was no significant difference in early (P = 0.75) and late (P = 0.71) postoperative complications in the AADI and AGV group. The complete success rate was higher in AADI group (68.42%) than AGV group (26.31%) (P = 0.034).

conclusionIn this study, AADI appears to have comparable efficacy versus AGV implant with higher complete success rate at 6 months follow-up.

Indexed as

Glaucoma Drainage ImplantsVisual AcuityAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleFollow-Up StudiesGlaucomaHumansIntraocular PressureMaleMiddle AgedPilot ProjectsProspective StudiesProsthesis DesignAhmed glaucoma valveAurolab aqueous drainage implantrefractory glaucoma

Identifiers

PMID30355865
PMCPMC6213703
OpenAlexW2898185268

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.