Fornix vs limbal‐based conjunctival trabeculectomy flaps: Mean intraocular pressure
Fornix showed no clear difference in mean intraocular pressure compared with limbal‐based conjunctival trabeculectomy flaps (moderate certainty).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Fornix vs limbal‐based conjunctival trabeculectomy flaps Mean intraocular pressure · patients with glaucoma Fornix showed no clear difference in mean intraocular pressure compared with limbal‐based conjunctival trabeculectomy flaps (moderate certainty). Fornix‐based versus limbal‐based conjunctival trabeculectomy flaps for glaucoma (2021) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | MD 0.86 | 2 studies · 139 participants | Moderate |
Fornix vs limbal‐based conjunctival trabeculectomy flaps Mean intraocular pressure · patients with glaucoma Fornix showed no clear difference in mean intraocular pressure compared with limbal‐based conjunctival trabeculectomy flaps (moderate certainty). Fornix‐based versus limbal‐based conjunctival trabeculectomy flaps for glaucoma (2021) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | MD 0.44 | 4 studies · 247 participants | Moderate |
Fornix vs limbal‐based conjunctival trabeculectomy flaps Mean intraocular pressure · patients with glaucoma Fornix showed no clear difference in mean intraocular pressure compared with limbal‐based conjunctival trabeculectomy flaps (moderate certainty). Fornix‐based versus limbal‐based conjunctival trabeculectomy flaps for glaucoma (2015) · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyearlier version CD009380.PUB2, superseded | MD 0.86 | 2 studies · 139 participants | Moderate |
Fornix vs limbal‐based conjunctival trabeculectomy flaps Mean intraocular pressure · patients with glaucoma Fornix showed no clear difference in mean intraocular pressure compared with limbal‐based conjunctival trabeculectomy flaps (moderate certainty). Fornix‐based versus limbal‐based conjunctival trabeculectomy flaps for glaucoma (2015) · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyearlier version CD009380.PUB2, superseded | MD 0.44 | 4 studies · 247 participants | Moderate |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fornix‐based versus limbal‐based conjunctival trabeculectomy flaps for glaucoma 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.