Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32821688›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of ophthalmology2020

Glaucoma drainage implants.

Pavi Agrawal, Palvi Bhardwaj

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of ophthalmology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
–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

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Application of Silicone in Ophthalmology: A Review.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  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.

Pavi AgrawalDepartment of Ophthalmology, Queens Medical Centre, Nottingham NG7 2UH, United Kingdom.
Palvi BhardwajDepartment of Ophthalmology, Queens Medical Centre, Nottingham NG7 2UH, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Glaucoma drainage devices have traditionally been reserved for refractory glaucoma. However, there is an increasing body of evidence to suggest the use of these implants at an earlier stage in the surgical management of glaucoma. We describe the mechanics behind their function as well as the various implants available. The implants vary in size, surface area and composition and hence the surgical implantation of these devices are described in detail. The knowledge of such devices and their potential complications is fundamental for the successful management of patients who undergo aqueous-shunt surgery. Careful patient selection and optimal postoperative management is critical to the successful patient outcomes.

Indexed as

aqueous shuntsglaucomaglaucoma drainage devices

Identifiers

PMID32821688
PMCPMC7387917

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.