Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32501895›Full record

SynthesisAsia-Pacific journal of ophthalmology (Philadelphia, Pa.)

Minimally Invasive Glaucoma Surgery: Where Is the Evidence?

Kevin Gillmann, Kaweh Mansouri

Open access · diamondAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Asia-Pacific journal of ophthalmology (Philadelphia, Pa.). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 55 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
55citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
11.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

55 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 120 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Twelve-month results of ab interno trabeculectomy with Kahook Dual Blade: an interventional, randomized, controlled clinical study.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2021
    Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Efficacy and Safety of the PreserfloJournal of clinical medicine · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Minimally Invasive Glaucoma Surgery: Is It Here to Stay?Clinical & experimental ophthalmology · 2025
    Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Kevin GillmannGlaucoma Research Center, Montchoisi Clinic, Swiss Visio, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Kaweh MansouriGlaucoma Research Center, Montchoisi Clinic, Swiss Visio, Lausanne, Switzerland.
University of Colorado Denver · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe last decade has witnessed an unprecedented growth in glaucoma treatment options through the introduction of minimally invasive glaucoma surgeries (MIGS). The aim of the present review is to provide an understanding of the currently available MIGS and to examine what data are currently available to guide treatment choice.

designMeta-analysis and systematic review of randomized and non-randomized control trials.

methodsOut of 2567 articles identified, a total of 77 articles were retained for analysis, including 28 comparative studies and 12 randomized control trials. Overall, 7570 eyes were included. When data permitted, the weighted mean difference in intraocular pressure reduction was calculated for comparison purposes.

resultsWeighted mean intraocular pressure reductions from all analyzed studies were: 15.3% (iStent), 29.1% (iStent inject), 36.2% (ab interno canaloplasty), 34.4% (Hydrus), 36.5% (gonioscopically-assisted transluminal trabeculotomy), 24.0% (trabectome), 25.1% (Kahook dual blade), 30.2% (Cypass), 38.8% (XEN), and 50.0% (Preserflo).

conclusionsOne of the advantages of the heterogenous range of available MIGS options is the chance to tailor therapy in an individualized manner. However, high-quality data are required to make this choice more than an educated guess. Overall, this review confirms the efficiency of assessed MIGS compared with standalone phacoemulsification, but it highlights that only few studies compare different MIGS techniques and even fewer assess MIGS against criterion standard treatments. Current evidence, while non-negligible, is mostly limited to heterogenous nonrandomized studies and uncontrolled retrospective comparisons, with few quality randomized control trials. We suggest that future research should be comparative and include relevant comparators, standardized to report key outcome features, long-term to assess sustainability and late complications, and ideally randomized.

Indexed as

Filtering SurgeryGlaucomaHumansIntraocular PressureMinimally Invasive Surgical Procedures

Identifiers

PMID32501895
PMCPMC7299223
OpenAlexW3033230373

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.