Cochrane · systematic review · CD011693

Ab interno trabecular bypass surgery with Trabectome for open‐angle glaucoma

Hu, K, Shah, A, Virgili, G, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2021 · 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
7
current version
GRADE rated
5
No studies
2
Included studies
NR
No studies 2 · 28.6%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 5 · 71.4%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%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

Phaco‐AIT compared with Phaco‐Trab for open‐angle glaucoma

Population: participants 40 to 85 years of age with open‐angle glaucoma
7 questions
OutcomeEffectEvidenceStatus / GRADE
Proportion of participants who were medication‐free (not using drops) at 12 months
Phaco‐AIT vs Phaco‐Trab
OR 2.33 [0.34, 16.2]1 study · 18 participantsVery low
Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision
Mean change in IOP (mmHg) at 12 months
Phaco‐AIT vs Phaco‐Trab
no estimate extracted1 study · 18 participantsVery low
Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision
Mean change in number of IOP‐lowering drops taken per day at 12 months
Phaco‐AIT vs Phaco‐Trab
no estimate extracted1 study · 18 participantsVery low
Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision
Proportion of participants who required further glaucoma surgery at 12 months
Phaco‐AIT vs Phaco‐Trab
OR 31 study · 18 participantsVery low
Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision
Rate of visual field progression
Phaco‐AIT vs Phaco‐Trab
no estimate extractedNRNo studies
Mean change in health‐related quality of life
Phaco‐AIT vs Phaco‐Trab
no estimate extractedNRNo studies
Proportion of participants experiencing intra‐ and postoperative complications
Phaco‐AIT vs Phaco‐Trab
no estimate extracted8 participantsVery low
Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision