Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35836197›Full record

SynthesisBMC ophthalmology2022

The efficacy of XEN gel stent implantation in glaucoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Xiang Yang, Yang Zhao, Yu Zhong, Xuanchu Duan

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC ophthalmology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
4.7field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Functional assessment of the XENGraefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Using a Novel, Subconjunctival, Sustained-Release Mitomycin C Formulation in a Rabbit Model of Filtration Surgery with Gel Stent Implantation.Journal of ocular pharmacology and therapeutics : the official journal of the Association for Ocular Pharmacology and Therapeutics · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Surgical Outcome Comparison of Open ConjunctivalJournal of current glaucoma practice
    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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Xiang YangChangsha Aier Eye Hospital, Changsha, Hunan, China.
Yang ZhaoChangsha Aier Eye Hospital, Changsha, Hunan, China.
Yu ZhongChangsha Aier Eye Hospital, Changsha, Hunan, China.
Xuanchu DuanChangsha Aier Eye Hospital, Changsha, Hunan, China. duanxchu@csu.edu.cn.
Central South University · CNHe Eye Hospital · CN

Funding

Clinical Research Institute Foundation of Aier Eye Hospital Group, China AR2106D2Natural Science Foundation of Changsha, China kq2202494Natural Science Foundation of Hunan Province, China 2019JJ40001Science and Technology Foundation of Changsha, Hunan, China kh1801229
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundXen is a device for minimally invasive glaucoma surgery, and is used to treat POAG, pseudoexfoliative or pigmentary glaucoma, as well as refractory glaucoma. The efficacy of XEN in treating glaucoma remains to be confirmed and clarified. Hence, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the efficacy and associated complication of XEN implantations.

methodsWe conducted a literature search in PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, WanFang and SinoMed databases to identify studies, published before May 15, 2021, which evaluated XEN in glaucoma, and parameters for measurements included intra-ocular pressure (IOP), number of anti-glaucoma medications (NOAM), and bleb needling rate. We compared the measurements of XEN-only procedure between phaco-XEN and trabeculectomy, and we also did sub-analysis based on time points, glaucoma types, ethnics, etc. Sensitivity analyses and publication bias were conducted for evaluating bias.This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA 2020) reporting guideline.

resultsWe identified 78 eligible studies, analysis revealed obvious IOP reduction after XEN stent implantation (SMD: 1.69, 95% CI 1.52 to 1.86, p value < 0.001) and NOAM reduction (SMD: 2.11, 95% CI 1.84 to 2.38, p value < 0.001). Sub-analysis showed no significant difference with respect to time points, ethnicities, and economic status. No significant difference was found between XEN treatment effect on POAG and PEXG eyes and between pseudo-phakic and phakic eyes. Also no significant difference was found between XEN and phaco-XEN surgery in terms of IOP after surgery (SMD: -0.01, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.08, p value 0.894). However, NOAM (after publication bias correction) and bleb needling rate (RR: 1.45, 95% CI 1.06to 1.99, p value 0.019) were lower in phaco-XEN group compared to XEN only group. Compared to trabeculectomy, XEN implantation had similar after-surgery IOP, however bleb needling rate (RR: 2.42, 95% CI 1.33 to 4.43, p value 0.004) was higher.

conclusionOur results confirmed that XEN is effective in lowering both IOP and NOAM till 48 months after surgery. It is noteworthy that XEN implantation leads to higher needling rate, compared to phaco-XEN or trabeculectomy. Further research, studying complications of XEN on non-European ethnicities, especially on Asian, are in urgent need before XEN is widely applied.

Indexed as

GlaucomaGlaucoma Drainage ImplantsStentsHumansIntraocular PressureTreatment OutcomeMeta-analysisMinimally invasive glaucoma surgeryXEN

Identifiers

PMID35836197
PMCPMC9284889
OpenAlexW4285590493

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.