Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 455

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 21 of the 21 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Minimally-invasive glaucoma surgeries (MIGS) for open angle glaucoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Open access
Lavia, Carlo, Dallorto, Laura, Maule, Milena, Ceccarelli, Manuela, Fea, Antonio Maria·2017·PLOS ONE

Abstract

BACKGROUND: MIGS have been developed as a surgical alternative for glaucomatous patients. PURPOSE: To analyze the change in intraocular pressure (IOP) and glaucoma medications using different MIGS devices (Trabectome, iStent, Excimer Laser Trabeculotomy (ELT), iStent Supra, CyPass, XEN, Hydrus, Fugo Blade, Ab interno canaloplasty, Goniscopy-assisted transluminal trabeculotomy) as a solo procedure or in association with phacoemulsification. METHODS: Randomized control trials (RCT) and non-RCT (non randomized comparative studies, NRS, and before-after studies) were included. Studies with at least one year of follow-up in patients affected by primary open angle glaucoma, pseudoexfoliative glaucoma or pigmentary glaucoma were considered. Risk of Bias assessment was performed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias and the ROBINS-I tools. The main outcome was the effect of MIGS devices compared to medical therapy, cataract surgery, other glaucoma surgeries and other MIGS on both IOP and use of glaucoma medications 12 months after surgery. Outcomes measures were the mean difference in the change of IOP and glaucoma medication compared to baseline at one and two years and all ocular adverse events. The current meta-analysis is registered on PROSPERO (reference n° CRD42016037280). RESULTS: Over a total of 3,069 studies, nine RCT and 21 case series with a total of 2.928 eyes were included. Main concerns about risk of bias in RCTs were lack of blinding, allocation concealment and attrition bias while in non-RCTs they were represented by patients' selection, masking of participants and co-intervention management. Limited evidence was found based on both RCTs and non RCTs that compared MIGS surgery with medical therapy or other MIGS. In before-after series, MIGS surgery seemed effective in lowering both IOP and glaucoma drug use. MIGS showed a good safety profile: IOP spikes were the most frequent complications and no cases of infection or BCVA loss due to glaucoma were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Although MIGS seem efficient in the reduction of the IOP and glaucoma medication and show good safety profile, this evidence is mainly derived from non-comparative studies and further, good quality RCTs are warranted.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0183142

Cites

21 of 21 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 21 references

Cited by

See all 455

Metadata

Authors
Lavia, C., Dallorto, L., Maule, M., Ceccarelli, M., & Fea, A. M.
Venue
PLOS ONE
Published
2017-08-29
Volume
12
Issue
8
Pages
e0183142
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2751451468
Cited by
455
References
21
FWCI
9.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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: Minimally-invasive glaucoma surgeries (MIGS) for open angle glaucoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pone.0183142
The paper
Lavia, C., Dallorto, L., Maule, M., Ceccarelli, M., & Fea, A. M. (2017). Minimally-invasive glaucoma surgeries (MIGS) for open angle glaucoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLOS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183142

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.