Trial reportScientific reports2025
Randomized clinical trial for pop titrated versus the slow coagulation cyclophotocoagulation in treating dark irises neovascular glaucoma.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01774227 (A Randomized Trial of the Pops-titration Versus the Slow-coagulation Energy Delivery Technique on the Outcome of Diode Laser Transcleral Cyclophotocoagulation in Treatment of Neovascular Glaucoma With Dark Iris), which is not on this 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.
A Randomized Trial of the Pops-titration Versus the Slow-coagulation Energy Delivery Technique on the Outcome of Diode Laser Transcleral Cyclophotocoagulation in Treatment of Neovascular Glaucoma With Dark Iris
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
Abstract
To compare the efficacy and safety of transscleral cyclophotocoagulation (TSCPC) using the pop-titrated (PT-TSCPC) versus the slow-coagulation (SC-TSCPC) energy delivery technique in the treatment of neovascular glaucoma (NVG) patients with dark irises. Randomized clinical trial. Ninety-seven Asian NVG patients. Forty-eight and 49 eyes were randomized to receive PT-TSCPC (1,500-2,500 mW for 2 s) and SC-TSCPC (1,250 mW for 4 s), respectively. Patients were followed up for five years. The success rate, the response rate, the retreatment rate, the cyclodiode efficacy index, the numerical pain rating scale (NPRS), visual acuity (VA), and complications. The preoperative parameters were comparable between both groups. The SC technique required 99.7 ± 35 joules, whereas the PT technique needed 78.3 ± 18.2 joules, P < 0.001). The PT method caused more eye pain during treatment than the SC method (NPRS; 6 vs. 1.8, P < 0.001). The mean intraocular pressure (IOP) at the last visit was 18.8 ± 5.3 mm Hg in the PT-TSCPC group (P < 0.001; 45% reduction from the baseline level) and 15.5 ± 6.7 mm Hg in the SC-TSCPC group (P < 0.001; 56% reduction), P = 0.02). The success rates were 60.4% in the PT-TSCPC group and 71.4% in the SC-TSCPC group (P = 0.14). The response rates were 85.4% and 79.6% for the PT- and SC-TSCPC groups, respectively (P = 0.46). The cumulative probability of success at 5-year follow-up was 48.6% and 69.3% in the PT- and SC-TSCPC groups, respectively (P = 0.03). The SC-TSCPC group required > 1 laser session than the pop-titrated technique (22.4% vs. 6.3%, P = 0.002). VA was worsening in 54.2% of PT-treated eyes and 51% of SC-treated eyes (P = 0.13). Worsening of intraocular inflammation (HR 2.63; 95%CI,1.11-6.26; P = 0.028), PT technique (HR 2.17; 95% CI,1.01-4.71; P = 0.048), male gender (HR 2.13; 95% CI,1.01-4.55; P = 0.048), were the risk factors for TSCPC failure in NVG. The slow-coagulation TSCPC may achieve more efficacious IOP reduction and has better safety profiles than the pop-titrated technique for treating NVG patients with dark irises. Nevertheless, it requires more laser sessions and energy than the power titrating protocol.Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier NCT01774227 (23/01/2013).
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.