Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34264292›Full record

ReviewJAMA ophthalmology2021

Minimally Invasive Glaucoma Surgical Techniques for Open-Angle Glaucoma: An Overview of Cochrane Systematic Reviews and Network Meta-analysis.

Amanda K Bicket, Jimmy T Le, Augusto Azuara-Blanco, Gus Gazzard, Richard Wormald, Catey Bunce, Kuang Hu, Hari Jayaram, Anthony King, Francisco Otárola and 5 more

Open access · greenAbstract readReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Review in JAMA ophthalmology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 61 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
61citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
9.9field-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

61 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 93 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Longitudinal analysis of XEN45 gel stent bleb morphology using bleb grading scales, anterior segment-OCT, in vivo confocal microscopy, and impression cytology.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2026
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

1 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors at 9 institutions in 3 countries.

Amanda K BicketDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Jimmy T LeDepartment of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland.
Augusto Azuara-BlancoCentre for Public Health, Queen's University, Belfast, United Kingdom.
Gus GazzardGlaucoma Service, Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Richard WormaldCochrane Eyes and Vision, ICEH, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Catey BunceThe Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London & Surrey, United Kingdom.
Kuang HuGlaucoma Service, Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Hari JayaramGlaucoma Service, Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Anthony KingDepartment of Ophthalmology, Nottingham University Hospital, Nottingham, United Kingdom.
Francisco OtárolaGlaucoma Service, Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Eleni NikitaGlaucoma Service, Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Anupa ShahCochrane Eyes and Vision, ICEH, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Richard SteadDepartment of Ophthalmology, Nottingham University Hospital, Nottingham, United Kingdom.
Márta TóthGlaucoma Service, Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Tianjing LiDepartment of Ophthalmology, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora.
Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust · GBLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBUniversity of Nottingham · GBJohns Hopkins University · USQueen's University Belfast · GBRoyal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust · GBUCL Biomedical Research Centre · GBUniversity of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus · USUniversity of Michigan–Ann Arbor · US

Funding

Maximizing Use of High-Quality Evidence in Eye Care: Cochrane Eyes and Vision US ProjectUG1EY020522 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER · PI Tianjing Li · 2017 to 2026
$10.1M
Wilmer Inst. Mentored Clinical Research Scholar ProgramK12EY015025 · NEI · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI James T Handa, Harry Alan Quigley · 2003 to 2026
$8.6M
FDA HHS U01 FD005942NEI NIH HHS K12 EY015025NEI NIH HHS UG1 EY020522
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

importanceGlaucoma affects more than 75 million people worldwide. Intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering surgery is an important treatment for this disease. Interest in reducing surgical morbidity has led to the introduction of minimally invasive glaucoma surgeries (MIGS). Understanding the comparative effectiveness and safety of MIGS is necessary for clinicians and patients.

objectiveTo summarize data from randomized clinical trials of MIGS for open-angle glaucoma, which were evaluated in a suite of Cochrane reviews. DATA SOURCES: The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews including studies published before June 1, 2021. STUDY SELECTION: Reviews of randomized clinical trials comparing MIGS with cataract extraction alone, other MIGS, traditional glaucoma surgery, laser trabeculoplasty, or medical therapy. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data were extracted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines by one investigator and confirmed by a second. Methodologic rigor was assessed using the AMSTAR 2 appraisal tool and random-effects network meta-analyses were conducted. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The proportion of participants who did not need to use medication to reduce intraocular pressure (IOP) postsurgery (drop-free). Outcomes were analyzed at short-term (<6 months), medium-term (6-18 months), and long-term (>18 months) follow-up.

resultsSix eligible Cochrane reviews were identified discussing trabecular bypass with iStent or Hydrus microstents, ab interno trabeculotomy with Trabectome, subconjunctival and supraciliary drainage devices, and endoscopic cyclophotocoagulation. Moderate certainty evidence indicated that adding a Hydrus safely improved the likelihood of drop-free glaucoma control at medium-term (relative risk [RR], 1.6; 95% CI, 1.4 to 1.8) and long-term (RR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.4 to 1.9) follow-up and conferred 2.0-mm Hg (95% CI, -2.7 to -1.3 mm Hg) greater IOP reduction at long-term follow-up, compared with cataract surgery alone. Adding an iStent also safely improved drop-free disease control compared with cataract surgery alone (RR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.2 to 1.6), but the short-term IOP-lowering effect of the iStent was not sustained. Addition of a CyPass microstent improved drop-free glaucoma control compared with cataract surgery alone (RR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.1 to 1.5) but was associated with an increased risk of vraision loss. Network meta-analyses supported the direction and magnitude of these results. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Based on data synthesized in Cochrane reviews, some MIGS may afford patients with glaucoma greater drop-free disease control than cataract surgery alone. Among the products currently available, randomized clinical trial data associate the Hydrus with greater drop-free glaucoma control and IOP lowering than the iStent; however, these effect sizes were small.

Indexed as

CataractGlaucomaGlaucoma, Open-AngleTrabeculectomyHumansIntraocular PressureRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSystematic Reviews as Topic

Identifiers

PMID34264292
PMCPMC8283665
OpenAlexW3179033638

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.