Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40826269›Full record

Trial reportScientific reports2025

Randomized clinical trial for pop titrated versus the slow coagulation cyclophotocoagulation in treating dark irises neovascular glaucoma.

Weerawat Kiddee, Kaneungnit Kittigoonpaisan, Sakhanit Leelaprasasne, Arunee Tanjana

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialComparative Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT01774227 nacompletednot on this map

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

TypeinterventionalSponsorPrince of Songkla UniversityRan2013 to 2020Enrolled98ConditionsGlaucoma, Intraocular PressureArmsThe pops-titration group, The slow-coagulation group
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Weerawat KiddeeDepartment of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University, Hatyai, Songkhla province, 90110, Thailand. kweerawat@hotmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0055-8210
Kaneungnit KittigoonpaisanDepartment of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University, Hatyai, Songkhla province, 90110, Thailand.
Sakhanit LeelaprasasneDepartment of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University, Hatyai, Songkhla province, 90110, Thailand.
Arunee TanjanaDepartment of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University, Hatyai, Songkhla province, 90110, Thailand.

Funding

Faculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University EC 560940212
6 · The paper itself

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

Glaucoma, NeovascularIrisLaser CoagulationAdultAgedFemaleHumansIntraocular PressureMaleMiddle AgedTreatment OutcomeVisual AcuityCyclophotocoagulationDark irisesNeovascular glaucomaPop-titratedSlow-coagulation

Identifiers

PMID40826269
PMCPMC12361414

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

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.