ArticleBMC ophthalmology2026
Efficacy and safety of ultrasound cycloplasty versus ahmed glaucoma valve for neovascular glaucoma.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of Ultrasound Cycloplasty (UCP) versus Ahmed Glaucoma Valve (AGV) implantation in the treatment of neovascular glaucoma.
methodsA total of 80 patients (80 eyes) were enrolled and assigned to receive either UCP or AGV treatment (40 eyes each). Patients were followed up for 6 months postoperatively. Intraocular pressure (IOP), number of IOP-lowering medications, pain score, visual acuity, and complications were recorded. Complete surgical success was defined as an IOP reduction of ≥ 20% from baseline and maintained between 5 and 21 mmHg, without the need for additional medications or further surgery.
resultsPreoperative baseline characteristics showed no significant differences between the two groups. On postoperative day 1, the AGV group showed a greater reduction in IOP compared to the UCP group (p < 0.01). At 6 months postoperatively, the UCP group demonstrated better outcomes in terms of the IOP reduction rate (61.62% vs. 66.97%, p = 0.04) and pain score (0.13 vs. 0.43, p < 0.01) compared to the AGV group. There were no significant differences between the groups in the number of medications used or the rate of surgical success. The AGV group experienced more complications, commonly including tube blockage and plate exposure.
conclusionBoth UCP and AGV are effective in reducing IOP. However, UCP resulted in more stable postoperative IOP, fewer complications, and offered better safety and patient comfort.
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.