Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40989068›Full record

Trial reportClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2025

The Duke Baerveldt 350 Versus Ahmed ClearPath 350 Study (DBACS): A Randomized Control Trial In Adults With Medically Refractory Glaucoma.

Michael S Quist, Andrew W Gross, Nicholas A Johnson, Sandra S Stinnett, Joanne C Wen, Pratap Challa, Kelly W Muir, Frank Moya, Leon W Herndon

Abstract readCase ReportsClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report 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, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Outcomes of the Ahmed clearpath glaucoma drainage device in glaucoma: a systematic review.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2026
    Pooled it
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

9 authors.

Michael S QuistDuke University Eye Center, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Andrew W GrossDuke University Eye Center, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Nicholas A JohnsonDuke University Eye Center, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Sandra S StinnettDuke University Eye Center, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Joanne C WenDuke University Eye Center, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8407-7819
Pratap ChallaDuke University Eye Center, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Kelly W MuirDuke University Eye Center, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8213-7796
Frank MoyaDuke University Eye Center, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Leon W HerndonDuke University Eye Center, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the efficacy and safety profile of two non-valved glaucoma drainage devices (GDDs). Patients & Methods: In this randomized control trial, patients with medically refractory glaucoma needing surgical intervention were randomized for placement of a Baerveldt 350 (BVT) or an Ahmed ClearPath 350 (ACP). Baseline testing included measures of visual acuity, intraocular pressure (IOP), medication, visual fields, and optical coherence tomography. IOP, medication use, and complications were assessed at post-operative day one, week one, week four, week six, month three, month six, and year one. Results: A total of 76 subjects were enrolled, 37 randomized to BVT and 39 to ACP. A total of 70 subjects underwent surgery and 61 subjects were seen to one year of follow-up. No significant differences were observed in age, sex, race, eye laterality, glaucoma type, glaucoma severity, prior surgeries, and baseline IOP (p = 0.66, 0.10, 0.70, 0.48, 0.06, 0.65, 0.50, 0.56 respectively), between the groups. At one year, both groups showed significant reductions in IOP, though the ACP group showed lower mean IOP at 12 months (11.4 vs 14.1 mmHg, p = 0.010) as well as a larger IOP decrease compared to baseline (-44.1 vs -30.7%, p = 0.038). Medication usage remained similar in both groups. Complications were infrequent and comparable between the devices. This study did not reach the number of subjects thought to be needed to power the study appropriately; despite the enrollment numbers, statistically significant differences were noted, and no type II occurred for the primary endpoint of mean IOP. Conclusion: While both GDDs demonstrated efficacy over a 1-year period, ACP showed a lower mean IOP and greater IOP percentage decrease from baseline compared to BVT. Both exhibited low complication rates. Further research over a longer follow-up is warranted to explore the IOP differences.

Indexed as

glaucoma drainage deviceglaucoma surgerytube shunt

Identifiers

PMID40989068
PMCPMC12452963

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.