ReviewClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2024
Outcomes of Micropulse Laser Trabeculoplasty Compared to Selective Laser Trabeculoplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2024. 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.
- Micropulse Laser Trabeculoplasty in Glaucoma: Efficacy and Safety in a Clinical Cohort.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
- Two-Year Post-Market Surveillance of iStentClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To perform a meta-analysis and systematic review to compare the efficacy and complications of micropulse laser trabeculoplasty (MLT) and selective laser trabeculoplasty (SLT) in adult patients with open-angle glaucoma (OAG) and ocular hypertension (OHT). Methods: We performed a systematic review utilizing PubMed, Embase, and Scopus, on April 8, 2024. Meta-analyses were performed for the mean change in intraocular pressure (IOP) at one-month, six-month, and one-year follow-up visits, rate of IOP spikes (>5 mmHg increase from the pre-procedure baseline IOP), rate of treatment failure (<20% or <3 mmHg reduction in IOP or requiring additional medications or procedures), and mean change in number of medications. Results: Six studies, with a total of 593 eyes, were included: 283 underwent MLT, while 310 underwent SLT. A statistically significant difference in the efficacy of MLT versus SLT at one-month and six-month follow-ups was present, with SLT reducing IOP by 0.83 mmHg (95% CI: 0.20, 1.47; P = 0.01) more and 0.55 mmHg (95% CI: 0.02, 1.08; P = 0.04) more than MLT, respectively. At the one-year follow-up, there was no significant disparity in IOP reduction between SLT and MLT (WMD = 0.16; 95% CI: -0.40, 0.71; P = 0.58). There was a significantly lower rate of IOP spikes in the MLT treatment group (RR = 0.37; 95% CI: 0.16, 0.89; P = 0.03). There was no statistically significant difference in the rate of treatment failures (RR = 1.05; 95% CI: 0.68, 1.62; P = 0.84) or number of topical medications reduced (WMD = 0.06; 95% CI: -0.13, 0.26; P = 0.53). Conclusion: While SLT may offer greater short-term reductions in IOP, it may be associated with more postoperative IOP spikes when compared to MLT. At one-year follow-up, there were no significant differences in IOP reduction or failure rates between the MLT and SLT groups.
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.