ArticleBMJ open2025
Characteristics and publication status of minimally invasive glaucoma surgery trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, 2007-2024: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMJ open, 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.
- Risk-Stratified Interventional Management and Surgical Decision-Making in Primary Glaucoma.Biomedicines · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo investigate the characteristics and publication status of minimally invasive glaucoma surgery (MIGS) clinical trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov.
designA cross-sectional study.
methodsAll 1212 interventional glaucoma trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov with start dates between 1 October 2007 and 30 April 2024 were included. All trials were categorised into 'MIGS trials' and 'other interventional glaucoma trials'. Based on the anatomical site of action and the research content, MIGS trials were classified into different groups, and intergroup comparisons were conducted. The characteristics and publication status of MIGS trials were comprehensively analysed.
resultsCompared with all other interventional glaucoma trials, MIGS trials had a higher proportion of single-arm trials (p<0.001) and industry funding (p<0.001), but a lower proportion of randomisation and blinding (p<0.001). The majority of MIGS trials were not overseen by a Data Monitoring Committee (DMC) (71.4%) and enrolled fewer than 200 participants (85.2%). MIGS trials targeting Schlemm's canal (SC) (60.2%) were significantly more prevalent than those targeting subconjunctival space (24.6%) and suprachoroidal/supraciliary space (15.3%). Trials focused on stand-alone MIGS (48.4%) or its combination with cataract surgery (32.0%) significantly outnumbered those investigating MIGS with other antiglaucoma surgeries (12.3%), MIGS with laser treatments (4.1%) and MIGS with medications (3.3%). A total of 34 MIGS trials (27.0%) published their results, of which 20 trials focused on stand-alone MIGS.
conclusionsMost MIGS trials were industry-funded, non-randomised, non-blinded and not overseen by a DMC. Researchers tend to focus on stand-alone MIGS or its combination with cataract surgery. The efficacy and safety of MIGS targeting SC remain a prominent focus of the field. Currently, the publication rate of MIGS clinical trials is relatively low. It remains difficult for ophthalmologists to choose among different MIGS procedures. Overcoming the design limitations of trials will be essential for generating more robust evidence to guide clinical practice and policy decisions.
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.