Cochrane · systematic review · CD011875
Aqueous shunts with mitomycin C versus aqueous shunts alone for glaucoma
Foo, VHX, Htoon, HM, Welsbie, DS, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2019 · 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
2
No studies
5
Included studies
NR
No studies 5 · 71.4%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 0 · 0%Low 2 · 28.6%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
Aqueous shunts with versus without mitomycin C for glaucoma
Population: adults with glaucoma requiring aqueous shunt surgery
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Mean IOP (mmHg) Aqueous shunts with vs without mitomycin C | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 78 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Control of IOP, assessed as the mean decrease in IOP from baseline Aqueous shunts with vs without mitomycin C | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Mean change from baseline in visual acuity Aqueous shunts with vs without mitomycin C | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Proportion of participants with stable best‐corrected visual acuity Aqueous shunts with vs without mitomycin C | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Proportion of participants with decreased visual acuity Aqueous shunts with vs without mitomycin C | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Proportion of participants with a postoperative hypertensive phase Aqueous shunts with vs without mitomycin C | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Proportion of participants with an adverse event Aqueous shunts with vs without mitomycin C | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 85 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |