ArticlePloS one2025
Treatment outcomes of paul versus ahmed glaucoma implants.
Article in PloS one, 2025. 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.
- Article
- 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
objectivesTo compare the outcomes of Paul (PGI) and Ahmed glaucoma implants (AGI) in patients with complex glaucoma.
methods64 patients undergoing PGI and 40 patients undergoing AGI were included in this study. Intraocular pressure (IOP), the number of IOP-lowering eye drops, and complications were evaluated during an 18-month follow-up.
resultsAt 18 months, follow-up was completed by 26 patients (65.0%) in the AGI group and 45 patients (70.3%) in the PGI group. IOP was significantly reduced 18 months following PGI (12.3 ± 4.0 vs. 28.0 ± 9.3 mmHg, p < 0.001) and AGI (15.6 ± 5.2 vs. 30.7 ± 8.9 mmHg, p < 0.001) compared to preoperatively. The PGI achieved significantly lower IOP compared to the AGI group (p = 0.042). Similarly, the use of IOP-lowering eye drops decreased significantly at 18 months in the PGI (0.5 ± 0.8, p < 0.001) and AGI (1.3 ± 1.0, p < 0.001) groups, from baseline values of 3.3 ± 1.3 in PGI and 3.5 ± 1.3 in AGI. The number of IOP-lowering eye drops was significantly lower in the PGI than in the AGI group at both 12 (p = 0.031) and 18 months (p = 0.018). At the 18-month follow-up, qualified success rates for target pressures ≤18 mmHg were higher after PGI than AGI (IOP ≤ 18 mmHg: 66.6% vs. 84.2%, p = 0.017, ≤ 15 mmHg: 46.3% vs. 64.8%, p = 0.049, ≤ 12 mmHg: 24.9% vs. 43.0%, p = 0.047). There was no significant difference in the complication rates between PGI and AGI.
conclusionBoth PGI and AGI effectively reduced IOP and the number of IOP-lowering eye drops over an 18-month follow-up period. The PGI demonstrated significantly greater reductions in IOP and IOP-lowering eye drops than AGI at 18 months. The safety profiles of PGI and AGI were comparable.
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.