Cochrane · systematic review · CD004918
Aqueous shunts for glaucoma
Tseng, VL, Coleman, AL, Chang, MY, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2017 · Cochrane Library
Eyes and VisionAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
30
current version
GRADE rated
15
No studies
15
Included studies
NR
No studies 15 · 50%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 7 · 23.3%Low 5 · 16.7%Moderate 3 · 10%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Aqueous shunts versus trabeculectomy
Population: People with glaucoma
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Mean IOP at 1‐year Aqueous shunts vs trabeculectomy | MD 2.55 | 3 studies · 380 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Mean logMAR visual acuity at 1‐year Aqueous shunts vs trabeculectomy | MD 0.12 | 3 studies · 380 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Mean change in visual field score from baseline at 1‐year Aqueous shunts vs trabeculectomy | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 196 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, publication bias |
Mean number of antiglaucoma medications at 1‐year Aqueous shunts vs trabeculectomy | MD 0.8 [0.48, 1.12] | 1 study · 184 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, publication bias |
Proportion needing additional glaucoma surgery at 1‐year Aqueous shunts vs trabeculectomy | RR 0.24 [0.04, 1.36] | 2 studies · 329 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Adverse events up to 1‐year Aqueous shunts vs trabeculectomy | RR 0.59 [0.43, 0.81] | 1 study · 212 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Quality of life at 1‐year Aqueous shunts vs trabeculectomy | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Ahmed implant versus Baerveldt implant
Population: People with glaucoma
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Mean IOP at 1‐year Ahmed implant vs Baerveldt implant | MD 2.6 | 2 studies · 464 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Mean logMAR visual acuity at 1‐year Ahmed implant vs Baerveldt implant | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 501 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Mean change in visual field score from baseline at 1‐year Ahmed implant vs Baerveldt implant | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Mean number of antiglaucoma medications at 1‐year Ahmed implant vs Baerveldt implant | MD 0.35 [0.11, 0.59] | 2 studies · 464 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Proportion needing additional glaucoma surgery at 1‐year Ahmed implant vs Baerveldt implant | RR 2.77 [1.02, 7.54] | 2 studies · 514 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Adverse events up to 1‐year Ahmed implant vs Baerveldt implant | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Quality of life at 1‐year Ahmed implant vs Baerveldt implant | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Ahmed implant versus Molteno implant
Population: People with glaucoma
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Outcomes* Ahmed implant vs Molteno implant | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Mean IOP at 1‐year Ahmed implant vs Molteno implant | MD 1.64 | 1 study · 57 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, indirectness |
Mean logMAR visual acuity at 1‐year Ahmed implant vs Molteno implant | MD 0.08 | 1 study · 57 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Mean change in visual field score from baseline at 1‐year Ahmed implant vs Molteno implant | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 57 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Mean number of antiglaucoma medications at 1‐year Ahmed implant vs Molteno implant | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 57 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, indirectness |
Proportion needing additional glaucoma surgery at 1‐year Ahmed implant vs Molteno implant | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse events up to 1‐year Ahmed implant vs Molteno implant | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Quality of life at 1‐year Ahmed implant vs Molteno implant | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Molteno implant versus Schocket shunt
Population: People with glaucoma
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Outcomes* Molteno implant vs Schocket shunt | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Mean IOP at 1‐year Molteno implant vs Schocket shunt | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 115 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, indirectness |
Mean logMAR visual acuity at 1‐year Molteno implant vs Schocket shunt | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Mean change in visual field score from baseline at 1‐year Molteno implant vs Schocket shunt | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Mean number of antiglaucoma medications at 1‐year Molteno implant vs Schocket shunt | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Proportion needing additional glaucoma surgery at 1‐year Molteno implant vs Schocket shunt | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse events up to 1‐year Molteno implant vs Schocket shunt | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Quality of life at 1‐year Molteno implant vs Schocket shunt | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |