Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36869980›Full record

ArticleInternational ophthalmology2023

Comparison of the results of Ex-PRESS

Noriko Katayama, Naoki Tojo, Mitsuya Otsuka, Atsushi Hayashi

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International ophthalmology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Noriko KatayamaDepartment of Ophthalmology, Graduate School of Medicine and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Toyama, 2630 Sugitani, Toyama, 930-0194, Japan.
Naoki TojoDepartment of Ophthalmology, Graduate School of Medicine and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Toyama, 2630 Sugitani, Toyama, 930-0194, Japan. tojo2005nm@yahoo.co.jp.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8036-4781
Mitsuya OtsukaDepartment of Ophthalmology, Graduate School of Medicine and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Toyama, 2630 Sugitani, Toyama, 930-0194, Japan.
Atsushi HayashiDepartment of Ophthalmology, Graduate School of Medicine and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Toyama, 2630 Sugitani, Toyama, 930-0194, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo compare surgical outcomes of Ex-PRESS® (EXP) surgery for primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) between low preoperative intraocular pressure (IOP) and high preoperative IOP.

methodsThis was a retrospective non-randomized study. Seventy-nine POAG patients who underwent EXP surgery and were followed for > 3 years were included. Patients with a preoperative IOP of ≦ 16 mmHg and > 16 mmHg with tolerant glaucoma medications were defined as the low IOP group and the high IOP group, respectively. We compared the surgical outcomes, postoperative IOP and number of glaucoma medications. Success was defined as a postoperative IOP of ≦ 15 mmHg and a reduction of > 20% from the preoperative IOP to the postoperative IOP.

resultsEXP surgeries significantly decreased IOPs from 13.2 ± 2.0 to 9.1 ± 2.9 mmHg in the low IOP group (p < 0.001), and from 22.5 ± 4.8 to 12.5 ± 4.0 mmHg in the high IOP group (p < 0.001). The mean postoperative IOP was significantly low in the low IOP group at 3 years (p = 0.0008). Success rates compared using the Kaplan-Meier survival curve were not significantly different (p = 0.449).

conclusionsEXP surgery was useful for POAG patients with a low preoperative IOP.

Indexed as

GlaucomaGlaucoma, Open-AngleTrabeculectomyHumansIntraocular PressurePostoperative PeriodRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeEx-PRESSGlaucomaLow IOPNTGOutcomesPOAG

Identifiers

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.