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 accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test
Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 · Cited by 56,722
ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions
Sterne, J. A., Hernán, M. A., Reeves, B. C., Savović, J., Berkman, N. D., Viswanathan, M., Henry, D., Altman, D. G., Ansari, M. T., Boutron, I., et al. (2016) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.i4919 · Cited by 20,329
Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias
Begg, C. B., & Mazumdar, M. (1994) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2533446 · Cited by 16,955
The number of people with glaucoma worldwide in 2010 and 2020
Quigley, H. A. (2006) · British Journal of Ophthalmology · doi:10.1136/bjo.2005.081224 · Cited by 7,394
(2008) · Cited by 3,790
Treatment Outcomes in the Tube Versus Trabeculectomy (TVT) Study After Five Years of Follow-up
Gedde, S. J., Schiffman, J. C., Feuer, W. J., Herndon, L. W., Brandt, J. D., & Budenz, D. L. (2012) · American Journal of Ophthalmology · doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2011.10.026 · Cited by 1,110
Preservatives in eyedrops: The good, the bad and the ugly
Baudouin, C., Labbé, A., Liang, H., Pauly, A., & Brignole-Baudouin, F. (2010) · Progress in Retinal and Eye Research · doi:10.1016/j.preteyeres.2010.03.001 · Cited by 1,084
Micro-invasive glaucoma surgery: current perspectives and future directions
Saheb, H., & Ahmed, I. I. K. (2012) · Current Opinion in Ophthalmology · doi:10.1097/icu.0b013e32834ff1e7 · Cited by 633
Meta‐analysis of skewed data: Combining results reported on log‐transformed or raw scales
Higgins, J. P. T., White, I. R., & Anzures‐Cabrera, J. (2008) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.3427 · Cited by 481
Parrish, R. K., Palmberg, P., & Sheu, W.-P. (2003) · American Journal of Ophthalmology · doi:10.1016/s0002-9394(03)00098-9 · Cited by 473
Cited by
Current management of glaucoma
Lusthaus, J., & Goldberg, I. (2019) · Medical Journal of Australia · doi:10.5694/mja2.50020 · Cited by 354
Metadata
- Authors
- Lavia, C., Dallorto, L., Maule, M., Ceccarelli, M., & Fea, A. M.
- Venue
- PLOS ONE
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- 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.