Trial reportJournal of glaucoma2026
Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Micropulse Versus Continuous-Wave Transscleral Cyclophotocoagulation in the Management of Refractory Glaucoma: A Prospective Cohort Study.
Trial report in Journal of glaucoma, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
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
prcisMicropulse transscleral cyclophotocoagulation (MP-TSCPC) has gained considerable acceptance as a preferred cyclodestructive intervention for refractory glaucoma, offering significantly enhanced safety profiles through precisely controlled pulse energy delivery while maintaining equivalent therapeutic outcomes compared with traditional modalities.
objectiveTo compare the efficacy and safety profiles of MP-TSCPC versus continuous-wave transscleral cyclophotocoagulation (CW-TSCPC) in patients with refractory glaucoma. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis prospective, randomized, single-blind study included 52 patients (52 eyes) with refractory glaucoma assigned to either MP-TSCPC or CW-TSCPC. Patients were followed for 18 months. Secondary outcomes included absolute IOP values, medication reduction, preservation of visual acuity, visual function parameters, quality of life, and complication rates. Success was defined as IOP between 6-21 mm Hg without medications (complete success), with medications (qualified success), or either (cumulative success). Patients were followed for 18 months.
resultsAt 18 months, 47 eyes completed follow-up (24 in MP-TSCPC and 23 in CW-TSCPC). The MP-TSCPC group (n=24) achieved a 34.43% IOP reduction from baseline, compared with 42.86% in the CW-TSCPC group (n=23), P=0.052. Complete success rates were 25.00% (6/24) for MP-TSCPC and 21.74% (5/23) for CW-TSCPC (P=0.999), while qualified success rates were 29.16% (7/24) and 39.13% (9/23), respectively (P=0.550). The cumulative success rates were 54.17% for MP-TSCPC and 60.87% for CW-TSCPC (P=0.706). The CW-TSCPC group experienced significantly higher rates of postoperative pain (56.52% vs. 20.83%, P=0.012) and prolonged inflammation (34.78% vs. 8.33%, P=0.039). Visual function parameters remained stable in both groups throughout the study period. Quality of life improved significantly in the MP-TSCPC group but not in the CW-TSCPC group, although between-group differences were not statistically significant.
conclusionMP-TSCPC demonstrated comparable efficacy to CW-TSCPC in IOP reduction and success rates for refractory glaucoma management, while offering a significantly improved safety profile with less postoperative pain and inflammation. These findings suggest that MP-TSCPC may be considered as a preferred initial cyclodestructive option when balancing efficacy and safety, though larger studies are needed to confirm these findings.
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.