ArticleBMC ophthalmology2023
The effects of the first versus second glaucoma drainage implant surgery in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo investigate the outcome of non-valved glaucoma drainage implant surgery (GDIS) in primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) patients divided in the first GDI group (patients who underwent the first GDIS) and the second GDI group (patients who underwent the second GDIS because of the failed first GDIS).
methodsIntraocular pressure (IOP), visual acuity (VA), visual field defect (VFD), medication score (MS), survival rate of GDIS, complications, and patient background was retrospectively analyzed. Two success criteria were set: Criteria (1) IOP reduction ≥ 20% and 5 < IOP ≤ 21, Criteria (2) IOP reduction ≥ 20% and 5 < IOP ≤ 14.
resultsThere were 136 eyes of 109 patients in the first GDI group and 32 eyes of 27 patients in the second GDI group. In the first GDI group and II, mean preoperative IOP was 26.7 ± 6.7 mmHg and 23.7 ± 3.5 mmHg, respectively (P = 0.09). No statistically significant difference in postoperative IOP reduction was found between the two groups (P = 0.39). At 5-years postoperative, the Criteria 1 (Criteria 2) survival rate in the first GDI group and the second GDI group was 60.4% (31.7%) and 61.2% (25.6%), respectively (Criteria 1: hazard ratio [HR]: 0.64, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.30-1.35 [P = 0.24]; Criteria 2: HR: 0.81, 95% CI: 0.46-1.44, P = 0.48). No significant difference in VA, VFD change, MS, or complications was observed. Young patient age was the only significant factor for failure in the first GDI group (odds ratio: 0.95, 95% confidence interval: 0.91-1.00, P = 0.03).
conclusionThe second GDIS may be as effective as the first GDIS for IOP reduction in POAG patients, however, there is a high risk of failure in young-age patients and the surgery may be ineffective in eyes requiring Criteria 2.
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.