Question · asked by 1 review
Phacoemulsification + supraciliary microstent surgery vs phacoemulsification alone: Rate of visual field progression
- Population
- people with open‐angle glaucoma
- Intervention
- Phacoemulsification + supraciliary microstent surgery
- Comparison
- phacoemulsification alone
- Outcome
- Rate of visual field progression
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Phacoemulsification + supraciliary microstent surgery vs phacoemulsification alone Rate of visual field progression or proportion of participants whose field loss progressed · people with open‐angle glaucoma The review found no eligible studies for this question. Ab interno supraciliary microstent surgery for open‐angle glaucoma (2021) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | no estimate extracted | Not reported | No studies found |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ab interno supraciliary microstent surgery for open‐angle glaucoma 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | Not extracted | Not assessed |
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.