ArticleArquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia
Trabecular microbypass as replacement therapy in pharmacologically controlled open-angle glaucoma patients.
Article in Arquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia. 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, 3 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 assess the outcomes of the trabecular bypass as replacement therapy for medications in pharmacologically controlled vs. pharmacologically uncontrolled open-angle glaucoma patients.
methodsThis was a retrospective study of eyes treated with first- (iStent) or second-generation (iStent inject) trabecular bypass. Group 1 consisted of eyes with pharmacologically controlled intraocular pressure <18 mmHg and Group 2 consisted of eyes with pharmacologically controlled intraocular pressure ≥18 mmHg. The main outcomes measured were qualified (with or without medications) and unqualified or complete (without medications) success rates at different target intraocular pressures, mean reduction (%) in medication use, and proportion of medication-free eyes.
resultsThe mean age was 70.4 years in Group 1 (n=105) and 68.1 years in Group 2 (n=65). Qualified success rates for intraocular pressure <18 mmHg, intraocular pressure <15 mmHg, and intraocular pressure <12 mmHg were similar between the groups (Group 1: 96.2%, 88.6%, and 32.4%, respectively; Group 2: 93.8%, 78.5%, and 21.5%, respectively; all p>0.05). Complete success rates were significantly higher in Group 1 than in Group 2: for intraocular pressure <18 mmHg (76.2% vs. 47.7%), intraocular pressure <15 mmHg (73.3% vs. 40.0%), and intraocular pressure <12 mmHg (14.3% vs. 4.6%). The mean reduction in medication use was higher in Group 1 than in Group 2. At the end of follow-up, 79.0% of eyes in Group 1 and 47.7% of eyes in Group 2 became medication-free.
conclusionsBoth groups showed high qualified success rates, but eyes with baseline pharmacologically controlled intraocular pressure <18 mmHg showed higher complete success rates and greater chances of achieving no need for medications.
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.