ReviewCureus2025
Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Glaucoma Surgery (MIGS) in Glaucoma Patients With Coexisting Cataract: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- iStent combined with phacoemulsification versus phacoemulsification alone in open-angle glaucoma: a meta-analysis by medication washout status.BMC ophthalmology · 2026Pooled it
- Trabecular Meshwork-Based MIGS: Efficacy, Technique Variability, and Wound Healing-A Comprehensive Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Clinical and Patient-Reported Outcomes of Premium Intraocular Lenses in Glaucoma Patients Undergoing Combined Cataract and Minimally Invasive Glaucoma Surgery.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
- Adverse events of trabecular micro-bypass minimally invasive glaucoma surgery devices: a five-year analysis from the FDA MAUDE database.International ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Comparison of Standalone Tanito Microhook Trabeculotomy Between Unilateral and Bilateral Incision Groups.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- One year clinical outcomes with a novel canaloplasty device in mild to severe open angle glaucoma.International journal of ophthalmology · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Glaucoma and cataracts frequently occur together in elderly populations, demanding combined surgical therapeutic strategies. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the clinical outcomes of minimally invasive glaucoma surgery (MIGS) in patients with coexisting open-angle glaucoma (OAG) and cataracts by adopting a meta-analysis research approach. The current meta-analysis followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines in selecting and screening the studies. A computer-based search of the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases was carried out using the last search up to November 2024. The quality of the studies included in this review was evaluated by methodological quality using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklist while the risk bias of the included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was assessed using Cochrane Library tools. All statistical analyses were performed using Review Manager (RevMan) version 5.4.0 (The Cochrane Collaboration). Seven studies (five cohort studies and two RCTs) involving 669 eyes of 651 patients were included. Pooled analysis showed that MIGS combined with cataract surgery significantly reduced intraocular pressure (IOP) compared to cataract surgery alone (mean difference: 1.58 mmHg, 95% CI: 0.30 to 2.87, p<0.00001). Additionally, MIGS decreased postoperative medication use (mean difference: -0.79, 95% CI: -1.28 to -0.30, p<0.0001). However, significant heterogeneity was observed (I
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.