ArticleJapanese journal of ophthalmology2026
Hypertensive phase after a novel small-lumen non-valved drainage device: predictive factors and two-year outcomes.
Article in Japanese journal of ophthalmology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative In Vitro Evaluation of Tube Resistance in Glaucoma Drainage Devices with Intraluminal Polypropylene Threads.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Two-year efficacy and safety outcomes of the Paul Glaucoma Implant compared to the Ahmed Glaucoma Valve.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe hypertensive phase (HP) following the implantation of a glaucoma drainage device (GDD) is a clinical challenge. We aimed to evaluate the risk factors, clinical features, and correlation of the HP with efficacy in a cohort of glaucoma patients who received a Paul glaucoma implant (PGI). STUDY
designThis was a single-center retrospective cohort study (Hospital Clínic of Barcelona).
methodsEighty-three eyes from 71 patients who underwent implantation of a PGI were included, with follow-up extending for up to 2 years. Intraocular pressure (IOP) was measured preoperatively, and at 1 day; 1 week; and 1, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months, postoperatively. Four different success criteria were established: criterion A: IOP <21 mm Hg; criterion B: <18 mm Hg; criterion C: <15 mm Hg; criterion D: <12 mm Hg. The numbers of postoperative IOP-lowering drops, complications, characteristics related to the presence or absence of an HP, and timing of prolene stent removal, among others, were recorded.
resultsWe observed a total of 23 cases (27.7% with an HP). On multivariate analysis we identified younger age (P = .028) and elevated IOP 1 month after surgery (P = .001) as independent risk factors. IOPs were significantly higher (P <.05) in the HP group at 1 week and at 1, 3, and 6 months postoperatively. After 12 months of follow-up, no differences were found between the 2 groups.
conclusionThe occurrence of an HP with a PGI does not seem to impact surgical success beyond 12 months postoperatively. However, further research is needed to better understand the underlying mechanisms of HP development and its clinical impact.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41269447What 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.