Cochrane · systematic review · CD012270
Iridotomy to slow progression of visual field loss in angle‐closure glaucoma
Rouse, B, Le, JT, Gazzard, G · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2023 · Cochrane Library
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
4
No studies
3
Included studies
NR
No studies 3 · 42.9%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 0 · 0%Low 2 · 28.6%Moderate 2 · 28.6%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
Current version onlyIridotomy compared to no iridotomy for people with primary angle‐closure suspect
Population: people with primary angle‐closure suspect
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Proportion of progressive visual field loss at 1 year Iridotomy vs no iridotomy | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Mean change in IOP (mm Hg) at 1 year Iridotomy vs no iridotomy | no estimate extracted | NR | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Gonioscopic findings Iridotomy vs no iridotomy | no estimate extracted | NR | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Need for additional surgery: proportion of participants who received additional surgery to control IOP within 1 year*** Iridotomy vs no iridotomy | RR 0.5 [0.05, 5.5] | NR | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Medications: mean number of medications used to control IOP at 1 year Iridotomy vs no iridotomy | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Quality of life measures Iridotomy vs no iridotomy | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse events Iridotomy vs no iridotomy | RR 13.7 [0.73, 230.42] | NR | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Iridotomy compared to no iridotomy for patients with primary angle‐closure suspect, primary angle closure, or primary angle‐closure glaucoma
Population: patients with primary angle‐closure suspect, primary angle closure, or primary angle‐closure glaucoma
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Proportion of progressive visual field loss at 1 year Iridotomy vs no iridotomy | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Intraocular pressure: mean IOP at 1 year Iridotomy vs no iridotomy | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Gonioscopic findings: mean angle width at 1 year Iridotomy vs no iridotomy | MD 12.7 [12.06, 13.34] | NR | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Need for additional surgery: proportion of participants who received additional surgery to control IOP at 1 year Iridotomy vs no iridotomy | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Medications: mean number of medications used to control IOP at 1 year Iridotomy vs no iridotomy | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Quality of life measures Iridotomy vs no iridotomy | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse events ‒ IOP spike (rise greater than or equal to 8 mmHg) at 1 hour Iridotomy vs no iridotomy | RR 24 [7.6, 75.83] | NR | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |