↓ Skip to main content

Systematic Literature Review of Clinical and Economic Outcomes of Micro-Invasive Glaucoma Surgery (MIGS) in Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma

Overview of attention for article published in Ophthalmology and Therapy, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#28 of 584)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
102 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
164 Mendeley
Title
Systematic Literature Review of Clinical and Economic Outcomes of Micro-Invasive Glaucoma Surgery (MIGS) in Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma
Published in
Ophthalmology and Therapy, May 2018
DOI 10.1007/s40123-018-0131-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pavi Agrawal, Steven E. Bradshaw

Abstract

Primary open-angle glaucoma is estimated to affect 3% of the population aged 40-80 years. Trabeculectomy is considered the gold standard in surgical management of glaucoma; however, it is a technically complex procedure that may result in a range of adverse outcomes. Device-augmented, minimally invasive procedures (micro-invasive glaucoma surgeries, MIGS) have been developed aiming for safer and less invasive intraocular pressure (IOP) reduction compared with traditional surgery. This paper presents results from a systematic literature review conducted in accordance with National Institute for Health and Care Excellence requirements for the Medical Technology Evaluation Programme via multiple databases from 2005 to 2016. For clinical outcomes, randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing MIGS with trabeculectomy or other therapies, observational studies, and other non-RCTs were included. Clinical outcomes reviewed were the change from baseline in mean IOP levels and change in topical glaucoma medication. Safety was assessed by reported harm and adverse events. For economic evidence, trials on cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, cost-benefit, cost-consequences, cost-minimization, cost of illness, and specific procedure costs were included. Risk of bias was assessed for clinical studies using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. A total of nine RCTs (seven iStents®, one Hydrus®, and one CyPass®), seven non-RCTs (three iStent®, three CyPass®, and one Hydrus®), and 23 economic studies were analyzed. While various forms of trabeculectomy can achieve postoperative IOP of between 11.0 and 13.0 mmHg, MIGS devices described in this review were typically associated with higher postoperative IOP levels. In addition, MIGS devices may result in increased hypotony rates or bleb needling in subconjunctival placed devices, requiring additional medical resources to manage. There is limited available evidence on the cost-effectiveness of MIGS and therefore it remains unclear whether the cost of using MIGS is outweighed by cost savings through decreased medication and need for further interventions. Larger randomized trials and real-world observational studies are needed for MIGS devices to better assess clinical and economic effectiveness. Given the shortage of published data and increasing use of such procedures, living systematic reviews may help to provide ongoing and timely evidence-based direction for clinicians and decision makers. This review highlights the current unmet need for treatments that are easy to implement and reduce long-term IOP levels without increasing postoperative aftercare and cost. Santen GmbH, Germany.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 164 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 164 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 11%
Researcher 17 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 9%
Other 13 8%
Student > Master 12 7%
Other 30 18%
Unknown 59 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 63 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 4%
Engineering 6 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 2%
Other 13 8%
Unknown 67 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 January 2020.
All research outputs
#2,687,255
of 23,047,237 outputs
Outputs from Ophthalmology and Therapy
#28
of 584 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#57,607
of 326,458 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ophthalmology and Therapy
#1
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,047,237 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 584 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 326,458 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them