Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 265

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 18 of the 18 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Efficacy and Safety of Trabeculectomy vs Nonpenetrating Surgical Procedures: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Open access
Rulli, Eliana, Biagioli, Elena, Riva, Ivano, Gambirasio, Giovanni, De Simone, Irene, Floriani, Irene, Quaranta, Luciano·2013·JAMA Ophthalmology

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: To date, only a few studies have directly compared nonpenetrating surgery (NPS) and trabeculectomy (TE). Therefore, there is no strong evidence as to which surgical technique leads to the best results in terms of ocular hypotensive effect and safety. OBJECTIVE: To compare the hypotensive effect and safety of NPS and TE in terms of intraocular pressure (IOP) reduction and incidence of complications. DATA SOURCES: The MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched for studies potentially eligible in any language published up to March 31, 2013. STUDY SELECTION: Systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies of 2 or more surgical techniques (1 of which had to be TE), including patients with open-angle glaucoma. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: The considered interventions were TE, deep sclerectomy (DS), viscocanalostomy, and canaloplasty. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was the mean between-group difference in the reduction in diurnal IOP from baseline to the 6- or 12-month follow-up evaluation. We also considered the incidence of complications, expressed as relative risk. RESULTS: Eighteen articles, accounting for 20 comparisons, were selected for data extraction and analysis. Analysis of the 6-month follow-up data showed that the pooled estimate of the mean between-group difference was -2.15 mm Hg (95% CI, -2.85 to -1.44) in favor of TE. There was no difference between the NPS subgroups. In the subgroup antimetabolite analysis, the addition of mitomycin C to TE and DS decreased the difference in the reduction in IOP (TE and DS without mitomycin C: -2.65 mm Hg [95% CI, -3.90 to -1.39]; TE and DS with mitomycin C: -0.83 mm Hg [95% CI, -2.40 to 0.74]). In the subgroup analysis by implant addition, no significant difference induced by DS with or without drainage devices was detected (test for subgroup differences: χ(2)(1) = 0.24; P = .62). The absolute risk of hypotony, choroidal effusion, cataract, and flat or shallow anterior chamber was higher in the TE group than in the NPS group. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Trabeculectomy seems to be the most effective surgical procedure for reducing IOP in patients with open-angle glaucoma. However, as expected, it was associated with a higher incidence of complications when compared with NPS.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2013.5059

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 18 references

Cited by

See all 265

Metadata

Authors
Rulli, E., Biagioli, E., Riva, I., Gambirasio, G., De Simone, I., Floriani, I., & Quaranta, L.
Venue
JAMA Ophthalmology
Published
2013-12-01
Volume
131
Issue
12
Pages
1573
ISSN
2168-6165 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2163393721
Cited by
265
References
18
FWCI
13.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Efficacy and Safety of Trabeculectomy vs Nonpenetrating Surgical Procedures: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2013.5059
The paper
Rulli, E., Biagioli, E., Riva, I., Gambirasio, G., De Simone, I., Floriani, I., & Quaranta, L. (2013). Efficacy and Safety of Trabeculectomy vs Nonpenetrating Surgical Procedures: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Ophthalmology. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2013.5059

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.