ReviewDie Ophthalmologie2023
[Comparison of glaucoma drainage implants].
Review in Die Ophthalmologie, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison between Ahmed glaucoma valve implant and Keiki Mehta body pressure glaucoma implant in neovascular glaucoma: 24-month results.International journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Comparing the use of Tutopatch® pericardium with Tutoplast® fascia lata in the context of PAUL® glaucoma implant surgery: an anterior segment OCT study.Eye (London, England) · 2025Article
- Anterior segment OCT for imaging PAULGraefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2025Article
- Development and material characteristics of glaucoma surgical implants.Advances in ophthalmology practice and researchReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Glaucoma drainage devices (tubes, GDI or GDD) are nowadays an important surgical option in the treatment of refractory glaucoma. They are frequently used in cases where previous glaucoma surgery has failed or in patients with a history of conjunctival scarring where other procedures are contraindicated or simply not possible. This article looks at the evolution of glaucoma drainage implants from the very beginning to the multiple designs, experiences and research studies that have made tubes an essential part of the armamentarium of modern glaucoma surgeons. The article describes the first concepts and then proceeds to the first commercialized devices which led to the widespread use of tubes such as Molteno®, Baerveldt® and Ahmed®. Finally, it looks at the innovations that have been carried out, particularly over the last decade with the advent of new tubes, such as Paul®, eyeWatch® and Ahmed ClearPath®. The factors associated with the success and failure of GDD surgery, including the indications, are different from those for trabeculectomy and increasing experience and larger amounts of data have helped glaucoma surgeons to become more comfortable with selecting the most appropriate procedure for the individual patients.
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.