ReviewOman journal of ophthalmology
Endoscopic cyclophotocoagulation for glaucoma compared to alternative procedures -A Systematic review.
Review in Oman journal of ophthalmology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Current trends and advancements in utilizing endoscopic cyclophotocoagulation for the Treatment of Glaucoma.Lasers in medical science · 2024Review
- Corneal Endothelial Graft Failure After Endoscopic Cyclophotocoagulation: A Case Report.Cureus · 2024Article
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
introductionDespite many recent developments, preference in the choice of surgical treatment of uncontrolled intraocular pressure (IOP) remains a challenge.
objectiveThis study compares the clinical efficacy and safety of endoscopic cyclophotocoagulation (ECP) to alternative surgical procedures, for all types of glaucoma. METHODOLOGY: The methodology adheres to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines for systematic review reporting. Studies reporting ECP and alternative surgeries in treating refractory glaucoma, neovascular glaucoma, aphakic glaucoma, filtering surgical failure-induced glaucoma, congenital or juvenile glaucoma, and secondary glaucoma such as uveitis glaucoma, traumatic glaucoma, secondary glaucoma postcorneal transplantation, etc. were included. The efficacy was evaluated from the number of IOP-lowering drugs, and mean change in pre- and post-IOP were the outcomes assessed in ECP and non-ECP groups in this review. Evaluations of the postoperative complications revealed the safety assessment of the procedure.
resultsIn total, 11 relevant studies were selected in this study with a total of 5418 eyes, including 763 eyes in the ECP group and 4655 in the non-ECP group. This review observed that both ECP and non-ECP procedures had been successful in reducing postoperative IOP.
conclusionIt can be deduced from this review, that all types of glaucoma can be treated efficiently with significantly higher success rates with ECP and ECP demonstrates lowest postoperative complications when compared to non ECP procedures. This review provides updated scientific evidence which caters to support clinical decisions for surgical treatment of glaucoma.
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.