ArticleEye (London, England)2026
PACS plus stratification of acute angle closure glaucoma cases: a retrospective analysis.
Article in Eye (London, England), 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsTo assess the relationship between the PACS Plus criteria and patients who develop primary Acute Angle Closure Glaucoma (AACG).
methodsThis was a retrospective single-centre study including adult patients with a diagnosis of primary AACG recorded between 3rd June 2015 and 3rd June 2025. Secondary causes of acute angle closure were excluded. Following the search, electronic records were screened for PACS Plus criteria and graded as 'PACS Plus' or 'PACS Minus'. The number and type of PACS Plus criteria met by each patient were recorded.
resultsThe database search found 137 patients with AACG, of which 83 met the inclusion criteria and had sufficient data for grading. 45 patients (54.22%) would have been labelled 'PACS Plus', while 38 patients (45.78%) would have been labelled 'PACS Minus'. On changing the PACS Plus criterion 'a family history of significant angle closure disease' to a modified criterion of 'a 1st degree relative with glaucoma', PACS Plus tool sensitivity was improved, with a significant increase in the number of labelled 'PACS Plus' (60 patients, 72.29%; p < 0.001, McNemar test with Edwards correction).
conclusionsThe results found suggest that the PACS Plus tool could be amended to better identify high-risk PACS patients who go on to develop primary AACG. By broadening the family history criteria to 'a 1st degree relative with glaucoma', sensitivity might be significantly increased and better ascertain high-risk PACS patients for whom LPI would be beneficial.
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.