Trial reportThe British journal of ophthalmology2025
Inflammation and patient satisfaction in micropulse versus continuous wave transscleral cyclophotocoagulation.
Trial report in The British journal of ophthalmology, 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 factors for tube exposure following Baerveldt glaucoma implantation and overlying tissue thickness assessed by anterior segment optical coherence tomography.Japanese 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsThis work aims to clarify whether micropulse transscleral cyclophotocoagulation (MPCPC) is gentler in terms of postoperative inflammation and is better tolerated compared with continuous wave cyclophotocoagulation (CWCPC).
methodsProspective, randomised controlled, interventional, single-centre trial performed at the Ludwig Maximilians University Munich from January 2020 to July 2023. In all patients, a laser flare meter was used to measure anterior chamber flare (ACF). Central macular thickness (CMT) was assessed using optical coherence tomography. To quantify pain perception and quality of life (QoL), patients completed the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and the Glaucoma Activity Limitation 9 questionnaire.
results60 eyes of 60 patients were included, with 30 eyes in the MPCPC group and 30 eyes in the CWCPC group. A significantly higher increase in ACF was found after CWCPC as compared with MPCPC at 1 day (p=0.004) and 1 week after surgery (p=0). ACF values equalised at week 6 (p=0.270) and month 3 (p=0.610). The increase in ACF at week 1 did not show a significant correlation with the final decrease in intraocular pressure (IOP, p=0.465). Moreover, the CWCPC group showed a markedly higher increase in CMT (165.5 (15-354) µm vs 55.8 (24-141) µm). VAS and QoL scores did not show to be significantly different.
conclusionsCompared with MPCPC, patients treated with CWCPC presented with more marked ACF only in the early postoperative period. ACF did not correlate with final IOP. CWCPC and MPCPC are equally well tolerated in terms of pain perception and QoL, but CWCPC may cause more severe inflammatory macular oedema.
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.