SynthesisEye (London, England)2025
Progression of primary angle closure suspects: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Eye (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the proportion of primary angle closure suspects (PACS) progressing to primary angle closure (PAC), acute angle closure (AAC), and primary angle closure glaucoma (PACG) and evaluated the impact of prophylactic laser peripheral iridotomy (LPI) on disease progression. A systematic search was performed on MEDLINE and EMBASE for studies published until November 2023 that reported on the proportion of PACS progressing to PAC. Using random-effects modelling, risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals estimated the proportion of progressing PACS between patients who received LPI versus those who did not. Two randomized-controlled-trials and three observational studies included a total of 1997 PACS patients. The weighted average age was 57.2 years with 74.7% females, and an average follow-up period of 6.2 years. Overall, 284 (14.2%) PACS patients progressed to either PAC (n = 258, 12.9%), AAC (n = 9, 0.5%), or PACG (n = 17, 0.9%). Patients receiving LPI displayed a 2.49-fold decrease in the risk of progression to PAC (RR: 2.49; 95% CI = 1.50-4.07; p < 0.001; NNT = 15), suggesting that there is a higher risk of disease progression without LPI. However, for the progressions to AAC and PACG, statistical significance was not reached. The present study provides valuable insights to the proportion of PACS who showed disease progression and underscores the potential benefit of prophylactic LPI in reducing the risk of angle closure disease progression. However, this study also addresses the issues surrounding the lack of demonstrated clinical efficacy for this intervention, thus advocating for a balanced approach in clinical decision-making.
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.