ReviewOphthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists)2026
Progress in the Synthesis of Evidence in Glaucoma: What We Know and the Gaps that Remain.
Review in Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists), 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeGlaucoma is one of the leading causes of blindness worldwide, necessitating evidence-informed interventions and strategies to improve the quality of life of affected individuals. In this review, we examined progress in evidence over the past decade and discussed its implications and the ways forward for delivery of glaucoma care globally, embedded within a rapid evidence and gap-mapping exercise of systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses published between 2015 and 2025.
methodsUsing a predefined conceptual framework, ten domains were identified as relevant to evidence synthesis in glaucoma care. Within each domain, we assessed areas of strength and identified remaining evidence gaps. Findings were synthesised narratively and recommendations provided to inform future research priorities and advancement in glaucoma care. RECENT
findingsAcross the systematic reviews published over the past decade, the majority focused on risk factors (15.6%), genetic factors (12.4%) and the effectiveness of various treatment modalities (44.4%). In the absence of a coordinated global approach, substantial duplication of effort across review groups was observed. In addition, several critical gaps remain in the evidence base, particularly regarding the cost-effectiveness of the interventions, improving equitable access to care and the availability of context-specific evidence for low- and middle-income countries. Improved rigour in the evidence from primary studies should be a key priority for future research. A substantial gap exists in the glaucoma care evidence base that limits its utility for informing clinical guidelines and policy development. Systematic reviewers should have a comprehensive understanding of the existing evidence landscape in glaucoma care prior to conceptualising and designing review projects. Strengthening the methodological quality of both systematic reviews and the underlying primary studies is essential to support the development of robust clinical guidelines and effective global policies in glaucoma care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42895680What 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.