Two-Year Results of XEN Gel Stent Implantation for Pseudoexfoliative Glaucoma in Phakic versus Pseudophakic Eyes.

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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Predicting bleb revision after XEN gel stent surgery in a real-world open-angle glaucoma cohort.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2026
   Article
2. One-Year Outcomes of Repeat XEN Gel Stent Implantation for Prior XEN Failure: A Retrospective Study.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026
   Article
3. Update on Surgical Techniques Best Practices to Optimize Outcomes Following Gel Stent Implantation.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025
   Article

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as