Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30726529›Full record

SynthesisGraefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie2019

Surgical treatment of neovascular glaucoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Zakhar Shchomak, David Cordeiro Sousa, Inês Leal, Luís Abegão Pinto

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Clinical outcomes of the PAUL Glaucoma implant for neovascular glaucoma.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2025
    Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Zakhar ShchomakFaculdade de Medicina da Universidade de Lisboa, 1649-028, Lisbon, Portugal.
David Cordeiro SousaDepartment of Ophthalmology, Hospital Santa Maria, Av Prof. Dr. Egas Moniz, 1649-035, Lisbon, Portugal.
Inês LealDepartment of Ophthalmology, Hospital Santa Maria, Av Prof. Dr. Egas Moniz, 1649-035, Lisbon, Portugal.
Luís Abegão PintoDepartment of Ophthalmology, Hospital Santa Maria, Av Prof. Dr. Egas Moniz, 1649-035, Lisbon, Portugal. abegaopinto@gmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis literature review and meta-analysis aims to compare intraocular pressure (IOP) lowering efficacy, failure rates and loss of light perception (LP) rates 6 months after an IOP-lowering surgical procedure in neovascular glaucoma (NVG) eyes.

methodsMEDLINE and EMBASE were used as data sources. Only studies including NVG patients who underwent two different surgical approaches were considered. The treatment effect measures were (i) weighted mean difference (WMD) for IOP reduction, (ii) risk ratio (RR) for failure rates and (iii) risk difference (RD) for loss of LP. Outcome measures were reported with a 95% confidence interval (CI) and P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Analysis was performed using RevMan v5.0.

resultsNo RCT were retrieved. Seven comparative non-randomised studies were eligible. In glaucoma drainage devices (GDDs) vs cyclophotocoagulation arm, there was no statistical difference in IOP-lowering efficacy (WMD = - 3.63; CI [- 8.69, 1.43], P = 0.16), although failure rates and loss of LP were lower in the GDDs group (RR = 0.64, CI [0.41, 0.99], P = 0.05; and RD = - 0.15, CI [- 0.25, - 0.05], P = 0.004, respectively). In the Ahmed glaucoma valve (AGV) vs trabeculectomy arm, there was no statistical difference in IOP-lowering efficacy and loss of LP (WMD = 0.78, CI [- 2.29, 3.85], P = 0.62 and RD of 0.04, CI [- 0.05, 0.14], P = 0.34, respectively), but failure rates were lower in trabeculectomy group (RR of 2.25, CI [1.14, 3.71], P = 0.02).

conclusionsThere is lack of high-quality evidence on the subject as no RCT were retrieved comparing two different IOP-lowering procedures in NVG patients. Our findings are based, therefore, on non-RCT studies and should be interpreted with caution. There appears to be no difference in IOP-lowering efficacy between GDDs and cyclophotocoagulation, although GDDs appear to be safer. AGV and trabeculectomy also seem to provide similar IOP-lowering results with trabeculectomy showing lower failure rates.

Indexed as

Glaucoma Drainage ImplantsCiliary BodyGlaucoma, NeovascularHumansIntraocular PressureLaser CoagulationTrabeculectomyCyclophotocoagulationGlaucoma drainage devicesNeovascular glaucomaTrabeculectomy

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.