ArticleJournal of glaucoma2019
Glaucoma Drainage Devices and Reasons For Keratoplasty.
Article in Journal of glaucoma, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Etiology and outcome of penetrating keratoplasty in bullous keratopathy post-cataract surgery vs post-glaucoma surgery.PloS one · 2023Article
- Corneal Edema and Keratoplasty: Risk Factors in Eyes With Previous Glaucoma Drainage Devices.American journal of ophthalmology · 2022Article
- Effects of femtosecond laser-assisted trephination on donor tissue in liquid interface as compared to applanated interface.Acta ophthalmologica · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
PRéCIS:: Over 10 years in a tertiary care setting, glaucoma drainage devices (GDDs) have not increased as a reason for keratoplasty. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether the reasons for keratoplasty have changed between 10 years in a tertiary care setting, with special attention to the rate of GDDs as a reason for keratoplasty.
methodsPatients aged 18 years or above who underwent keratoplasty at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN from 2005 to 2006 and 2015 to 2016 were studied. All reasons for keratoplasty performed in the study time period are assessed, including patients who previously had a GDD implanted in the same eye. After analyzing the reasons for keratoplasty, we assess whether the reasons for keratoplasty have changed between 2005 to 2006 and 2015 to 2016 in association with the increasing placement of GDDs.
resultsThe number of keratoplasty procedures performed in the 2 time periods increased by 62% from 163 (2005 to 2006) to 264 (2015 to 2016), whereas GDD placement increased by 164% from 80 GDD (2005 to 2006) to 211 GDD (2015 to 2016). Although the performance of keratoplasty increased between the 2 points in time, the frequency of each cause for keratoplasty did not change significantly. The majority of keratoplasties were performed due to corneal disease, and GDDs made up a small portion of reasons for keratoplasty (2005 to 2006, 4.29%; 2015 to 2016, 5.68%).
conclusionsThe frequency of GDDs as a reason for keratoplasty has not changed significantly between 10 years in this tertiary care setting. Patients with GDDs who later required keratoplasty had associated features including multiple surgical procedures and comorbid infection, pseudophakic bullous keratopathy, Fuchs dystrophy, pseudoexfoliation, uveitis, and congenital glaucoma.
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.