ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2024
Historical and Contemporary Debates in Schlemm's Canal-Based MIGS.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Visual Function After Schlemm's Canal-Based MIGS.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Comparison of Standalone Tanito Microhook Trabeculotomy Between Unilateral and Bilateral Incision Groups.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Efficacy and Safety of Initial Outflow Reconstruction Using Ab Interno Microhook Trabeculotomy: A Retrospective Study in Secondary Glaucoma.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Article
- Diabetes Mellitus: A Risk Factor in Schlemm's Canal-Based Minimally Invasive Glaucoma Surgery.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Glaucoma is one of the primary causes of blindness worldwide. Canal opening surgery, a type of minimally invasive glaucoma surgery (MIGS) applied in cases of mild to moderate glaucoma, has gained increasing popularity in recent years due to its efficacy in reducing the intraocular pressure, its safety profile, the simplicity of its technique, and the reduced likelihood of compromised vision. Nevertheless, the existing body of histopathological studies remains insufficient for a comprehensive understanding of post-surgical wound healing. Consequently, debates persist among researchers regarding the mechanism through which Schlemm's canal opening surgery reduces the intraocular pressure, as well as the surgical techniques that may impact the outcomes and the factors influencing surgical success. As the history of MIGS is relatively short and lacks sufficient systemic reviews or meta-analyses evaluating the influence of individual factors, this review was conducted to illuminate the disparities in researchers' opinions at the current stage of research.
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.