Trial reportInternational ophthalmology2023
A multicenter prospective comparative study evaluating cataract surgery and endoscopic cyclophotocoagulation either with or without iStent inject implantation in Brazilian patients with glaucoma.
Trial report in International ophthalmology, 2023. 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Efficacy and Safety of Minimally Invasive Glaucoma Surgery for Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma: A Systematic Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Performance and Safety of Minimally Invasive Nasal Trabeculostomy (MINT™) in Open-Angle Glaucoma: A 12-month Open-Label Study on Patients with No Other Glaucoma Surgeries.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Article
- Current trends and advancements in utilizing endoscopic cyclophotocoagulation for the Treatment of Glaucoma.Lasers in medical science · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeCompare 12-month (12 M) safety and efficacy of endoscopic cyclophotocoagulation (ECP) + cataract surgery (Group 1) versus ECP + cataract surgery + iStent inject trabecular micro-bypass implantation (Group 2) in Brazilian patients with open-angle glaucoma (OAG).
methodsThis prospective, multicenter, comparative case series included patients with OAG and cataract who were randomized to receive treatment in Group 1 or Group 2. Outcomes included mean and percent reduction versus preoperative in intraocular pressure (IOP) and number of glaucoma medications; visual acuity; occurrence of adverse events; and rate of secondary surgeries.
resultsPreoperatively, Groups 1 and 2 had similar mean IOP (mean ± standard deviation 22.1 ± 3.6 and 22.0 ± 2.5 mmHg, respectively) and mean number of medications (3.3 ± 0.6 and 3.4 ± 0.6 medications, respectively). At all follow-up timepoints through 12 M, both groups achieved significant IOP and medication reductions versus preoperative (IOP p < 0.001 and number of medications p < 0.001 for both groups). At 12 M, IOP reductions were 24.2% (Group 1) and 43.6% (Group 2) (p < 0.001); mean medication reductions were 50.2% and 71.5%, respectively. Mean postoperative IOP and number of medications were higher in Group 1 than Group 2 (IOP p < 0.01 all visits, medication p < 0.01 at 6 M and 12 M). Adverse events were generally mild and infrequent in both groups.
conclusionBoth treatment groups (ECP + phacoemulsification, with/without iStent inject implantation) achieved significant and safe reductions in IOP and medications versus preoperative in Brazilian OAG patients. Percent reductions were significantly greater, and mean IOP and medications were significantly lower, in the group receiving iStent inject. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION (CTR): CAAE project identification #20053019.5.0000.5078. Protocol #3.587.147. Clinical Trial Database of the Federal University of Goiás, Brazil. Registration Date: September 19, 2019.
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.