Observational studyRomanian journal of ophthalmology
Effect of Phaco-trabeculectomy versus Phacoemulsification on Refractive Outcome - A Prospective Observational Study.
Observational study in Romanian journal of ophthalmology. 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
Purpose: To compare the refractive outcomes of phaco-trabeculectomy versus phacoemulsification. Methods: This prospective observational study included 75 eyes, 42 eyes with cataract and glaucoma that underwent phaco-trabeculectomy, and 33 eyes with cataract that underwent phacoemulsification. The primary outcome measures were the assessment of mean prediction refractive error and absolute mean prediction refractive error, measured during biometry with a target refraction of more than -1 diopter. Results: The mean age of the study population was 60.3 ± 4.5 years (SD) in the phaco trabeculectomy group (Group 1) and 64.24 ± 3.2 years (SD) in the phacoemulsification group (Group 2). The mean prediction error in group 1 was -0.21 + 0.88 diopters, and in group 2, it was -0.24 + 1.42 diopters, with absolute mean prediction errors of 0.72 + 0.68 diopters in group 1 and 0.71 + 0.97 diopters in group 2. A statistically significant shift in myopic and hyperopic prediction error was noted for 0 to 1 diopter, and a change above one diopter was not substantial. Discussion: This discussion examines the challenges associated with refractive outcomes following combined cataract and glaucoma filtration surgery. The study found considerable variability in achieving the target refraction, with prediction errors generally within one diopter, consistent with other research. The study's limitations, including a short follow-up period and variations in surgical techniques, are acknowledged as possible factors that may contribute to refractive errors and astigmatism. Conclusions: The predicted refractive errors in both groups were similar, with equal myopic and hyperopic shifts noted, and a statistically significant change was observed from 0 to 1 diopter.
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.