SynthesisEye (London, England)2024
Dysphotopsia and location of laser iridotomy: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Eye (London, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Progression of primary angle closure suspects: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Eye (London, England) · 2025Pooled it
- Comparative efficacy of Nd:YAG laser peripheral iridotomy and surgical iridectomy in modulating perioperative subclinical inflammation after DMEK.Acta ophthalmologica · 2026Article
- Laser peripheral iridotomy induced changes in eyes with primary angle closure disease.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2026Review
- Investigation of laser peripheral iridotomy characteristics using the ImageJ program on anterior segment parameters.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This systematic review aimed to clarify the relationship between the location of laser peripheral iridotomy (LPI), a common procedure to prevent or treat angle-closure glaucoma, and the incidence of post-procedure visual disturbances known as dysphotopsias. Understanding this relationship is crucial due to the high frequency of LPIs performed and the significant impact dysphotopsia can have on vision and quality of life. Articles investigating the relationship between LPI location and dysphotopsia in at least five patients were identified via a literature search of OVID MEDLINE (1946-November 19, 2022) and EMBASE (1946-November 19, 2022). Non-comparative and non-English studies were excluded. Studies did not require a control group to be included. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system and Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB2) tool were used to appraise included studies. Our review included three studies encompassing 1756 eyes from 878 patients. The location of LPI was grouped into superior (604 patients, 889 eyes), inferior (150 patients, 150 eyes), and nasal/temporal (443 patients, 717 eyes). The analysis showed no significant difference in the incidence of any new dysphotopsia types among the location groups post-LPI. Overall, the incidence of lines, ghost images, and blurring significantly increased after LPI, while halos and glare significantly decreased. In conclusion, the current literature suggests that the location of LPI has no significant relationship to the types and rates of dysphotopsia experienced thereafter. While there is a 2-3% risk of linear dysphotopsia after LPI regardless of location, LPI may also resolve pre-existing halos and glare.
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.