ArticleInternational ophthalmology2020
Comparison of the diurnal efficacy and safety of cyclocryocoagulation and cyclophotocoagulation in patients with refractory glaucoma.
Article in International ophthalmology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the diurnal IOP-lowering efficacy and safety of cyclocryocoagulation (CCC) and cyclophotocoagulation (CPC) in patients with refractory glaucoma.
methodsForty eyes of 40 Caucasian patients with advanced primary or secondary glaucoma with only tunnel vision left were included in this retrospective, comparative interventional case series. Twenty eyes treated with CCC were compared with 20 eyes treated with CPC. Primary endpoint was the reduction of 24 h mean diurnal intraocular pressure (IOP; mean of 6 measurements), peak IOP and diurnal IOP fluctuations 3 and 6 months post-treatment. Secondary outcomes were the occurrence of postoperative complications and the identification of factors influencing the postoperative IOP reduction.
resultsIn the CCC group (mean age 70.6 ± 13.4 years), mean diurnal IOP was significantly reduced from 20.0 ± 4.5 mmHg to 14.7 ± 2.5 (p < 0.001) at 3 months and 13.9 ± 3.34 mmHg at 6-month follow-up (p < 0.001). In the CPC group (mean age 74.9 ± 9.0 years), mean diurnal IOP significantly decreased from 18.2 ± 3.1 mmHg to 13.2 ± 2.2 (p < 0.001) at 3 months and 13.1 ± 2.6 mmHg (p < 0.001) at 6 months. At 6 months, 75% of the CCC and 63% of the CPC group had mean diurnal IOP reductions of 20% or more. The most frequent complication (25%) was a transient IOP increase during the first days after CCC. A higher preoperative mean diurnal IOP was recognized as the only factor influencing the postoperative IOP reduction after CCC and CPC.
conclusionsBoth cyclodestructive methods seem to be reasonably safe and effective in lowering 24 h mean diurnal IOP in the perspective of 6 months in patients with refractory glaucoma. The IOP-lowering effect after CCC was better but not statistically significantly different compared to CPC. A higher rate of complications was observed in the CCC group, however.
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.