ArticleEuropean journal of ophthalmology2025
Comparison of outcomes of continuous-wave and micropulse trans-scleral cyclophotocoagulation: A retrospective cohort study.
Article in European journal of ophthalmology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Micropulse Versus Continuous-Wave Transscleral Cyclophotocoagulation in the Management of Refractory Glaucoma: A Prospective Cohort Study.Journal of glaucoma · 2026Trial
- Safety and efficacy of micropulse transscleral laser therapy for glaucoma: a two-year follow-up.International journal of ophthalmology · 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
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
PurposeThis study aimed to compare and provide data on the outcomes of continuous wave (CWCPC) and micropulse transscleral cyclophotocoagulation (MPCPC).MethodsThis was a retrospective cohort study of 130 glaucomatous eyes that underwent CWCPC with a minimum 6-month follow-up matched 1:1 with 130 eyes that underwent MPCPC. The main outcome measure was CPC failure, defined as intraocular pressure (IOP) reduction of <20%, therapy advancement, or progression to no light perception. The secondary outcome measure was safety profile and complications.ResultsThe mean age of patients in the CWCPC and MPCPC groups was 64.4 ± 16.4 and 64.0 ± 17.2 years, respectively. Most patients were male (56.5%), and 48.5% were White. Primary open-angle glaucoma was the most common glaucoma diagnosis (40.4%), 58.5% of the patients had severe glaucoma. Mean preoperative IOP and number of medications were 29.8 ± 10.6 mmHg and 3.7 ± 1.3, respectively. The failure rates at 6 months (46.9% vs. 18.5%) and 1 year (61.5% vs. 40.8%) were higher in MPCPC group (
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.