ArticleHeliyon2025
Effectiveness of the addition of visual aids to conversational preoperative education in glaucoma filtering surgery: A randomized controlled trial.
Article in Heliyon, 2025. 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.
- Preoperative information needs and preferences of refractive surgery patients: a discrete choice experiment.Frontiers in medicine · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study aimed to evaluate the impact of preoperative visual aids on anxiety and pain management in patients with low educational backgrounds undergoing glaucoma filtering surgery. Methods: A randomized, single-blinded, single-center clinical trial was conducted at a tertiary eye hospital in Shantou, China. Patients scheduled for glaucoma filtering surgery were randomly assigned to either a conventional oral education group or a visual aids group. Anxiety levels, pain scores, blood pressure, and pulse rates were measured at multiple time points. Findings: The visual aids group demonstrated significantly lower anxiety levels (HAMA score: 19.6 ± 1.7 vs. 27.9 ± 3.1; p < 0.001) and pain scores (VAS: F = 174.628; p < 0.001) compared to the oral education group. Additionally, systolic blood pressure was significantly lower in the visual aids group (F = 6.373; p = 0.013). During the preoperative visit, patients in the oral education group asked significantly more questions (mean ± SD: 4.0 ± 1.3) compared to those in the visual aids group (mean ± SD: 0.75 ± 0.7; p < 0.001). However, their understanding of the surgery was notably lower than that of the visual aids group. The requirement for additional anesthesia due to pain was markedly higher in the oral education group, with 66.2 % (45/68) of patients needing extra anesthesia compared to only 4.6 % (3/65) in the visual aids group (p < 0.001). Furthermore, the ocular positioning compliance and cooperation during the surgery were significantly lower in the oral education group compared to the visual aids group (p < 0.001). Interpretation: The inclusion of visual aids in preoperative education significantly improves patient outcomes in glaucoma filtering surgery by reducing anxiety and pain and stabilizing physiological parameters. This approach is particularly beneficial for patients with lower educational backgrounds.
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.