ArticleFrontiers in medicine2022
Clinical application of the CO
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Modified suture-assisted penetrating canaloplasty vs. compound trabeculectomy in treating primary angle-closure glaucoma.BMC ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Study on Recovery Strategy of Hearing Loss & SGN Regeneration Under Physical Regulation.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025Review
- A Review of Canaloplasty in the Treatment and Management of Glaucoma.Journal of current glaucoma practiceReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study aimed to investigate the clinical application of laser as a knife in Ab externo Schlemm's canal (SC) surgery and compare the efficacy and safety of the CO Methods: Patients who underwent either canaloplasty or trabeculotomy with CO Results: A total of 49 patients (49 eyes) were included in this study, including 23 in the Laser surgery group and 26 in the conventional surgery group. Time for SC opening was 49.33 ± 25.23 s and 116.50 ± 31.79 s for laser surgery group and conventional surgery group, respectively. This difference between the two groups was statistically significant ( Conclusion: Compared with the conventional procedure using a surgical knife, CO
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.