ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2025
Micropulse Cyclophotocoagulation versus Ultrasound Cycloplasty in a Tertiary Eye Care Center in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 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.
- Impact of ultrasound cycloplasty on ocular biomechanics and refractive parameters: a comprehensive review.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
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 efficacy, safety and outcomes of micropulse cyclophotocoagulation (MP-CPC) to ultrasound cycloplasty (UCP) in patients referred to a tertiary eye care center in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Patients and Methods: A retrospective study evaluated data from patients who had undergone MP-CPC or UCP from January 2017 to October 2023. Patients who lost to follow up and patients with incomplete medical reports were excluded from the study. Data was collected for day 1, 2nd week, 1 month and 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. At each visit, data was collected on intraocular pressure (IOP), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), medications and possible complications. Data was compared between groups. P<0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: Out of 139 eyes, 65 underwent UCP, and 74 underwent MP-CPC. IOP in the UCP group decreased from 29.67±9.82 mmHg preoperatively to 21.00±6.78 mmHg at one year postoperatively and in the MP-CPC group, IOP decreased from 28.44±9.46 mmHg to 20.41±8.77 mmHg respectively. In the UCP group, at the 1-year follow-up, vision remained unchanged from the preoperative levels in 6 eyes (27.3%), while 2 eyes (9.1%) lost 1 line of vision, and 8 eyes (36.4%) experienced a loss of ≥2 lines. In the MP-CPC group, at the 1-year follow-up, vision remained unchanged in 24 eyes (43.6%), 2 eyes (3.6%) lost 1 line, and 20 eyes (36.4%) had a loss of ≥2 lines. The number of antiglaucoma medications at 1 year postoperatively did not differ between groups. The qualified success rate at 1 year was similar between groups. Conclusion: Both UCP and MP-CPC are safe and effective for reducing IOP in refractory glaucoma, with similar reductions observed between the two techniques. Visual outcomes and qualified success rates were comparable between UCP and MP-CPC.
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.