↓ Skip to main content

Aqueous shunts for glaucoma

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
1 policy source
twitter
9 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Readers on

mendeley
147 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Aqueous shunts for glaucoma
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004918.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Victoria L Tseng, Anne L Coleman, Melinda Y Chang, Joseph Caprioli

Abstract

Aqueous shunts are employed to control intraocular pressure (IOP) for people with primary or secondary glaucomas who fail or are not candidates for standard surgery. To assess the effectiveness and safety of aqueous shunts for reducing IOP in glaucoma compared with standard surgery, another type of aqueous shunt, or modification to the aqueous shunt procedure. We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2016, Issue 8), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to August 2016), Embase.com (1947 to August 2016), PubMed (1948 to August 2016), LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database) (1982 to August 2016), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov); searched 15 August 2016, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en); searched 15 August 2016. We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic search for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 15 August 2016. We also searched the reference lists of identified trial reports and the Science Citation Index to find additional trials. We included randomized controlled trials that compared various types of aqueous shunts with standard surgery or to each other in eyes with glaucoma. Two review authors independently screened search results for eligibility, assessed the risk of bias, and extracted data from included trials. We contacted trial investigators when data were unclear or not reported. We graded the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We followed standard methods as recommended by Cochrane. We included 27 trials with a total of 2099 participants with mixed diagnoses and comparisons of interventions. Seventeen studies reported adequate methods of randomization, and seven reported adequate allocation concealment. Data collection and follow-up times varied.Four trials compared an aqueous shunt (Ahmed or Baerveldt) with trabeculectomy, of which three reported one-year outcomes. At one-year, the difference in IOP between aqueous shunt groups and trabeculectomy groups was uncertain (mean difference (MD) 2.55 mmHg, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.78 to 5.87; 380 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The difference in logMAR visual acuity was also uncertain (MD 0.12 units, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.31; 380 participants; very low-certainty evidence). In two trials, the difference in visual field score was uncertain (MD -0.25, 95% CI -1.91 to 1.40; 196 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The mean number of antiglaucoma medications was higher in the aqueous shunt group than the trabeculectomy group in one trial (MD 0.80, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.12; 184 participants; low-certainty evidence). The effect on needing additional glaucoma surgery was uncertain between groups in two trials (risk ratio (RR) 0.24, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.36; 329 participants; very low-certainty evidence). In one trial, fewer total adverse events were reported in the aqueous shunt group than the trabeculectomy group (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.81; 212 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No trial reported quality-of-life outcomes at one-year follow-up.Two trials that compared the Ahmed implant with the Baerveldt implant for glaucoma found higher mean IOP in the Ahmed group at one-year follow-up (MD 2.60 mmHg, 95% CI 1.58 to 3.62; 464 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The difference in logMAR visual acuity was uncertain between groups (MD -0.07 units, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.13; 501 participants; low-certainty evidence). The MD in number of antiglaucoma medications was within one between groups (MD 0.35, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.59; 464 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). More participants in the Ahmed group required additional glaucoma surgery than the Baerveldt group (RR 2.77, 95% CI 1.02 to 7.54; 514 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The two trials reported specific adverse events but not overall number of adverse events. Neither trial reported visual field or quality-of-life outcomes at one-year follow-up.One trial compared the Ahmed implant with the Molteno implant for glaucoma over two-year follow-up. Mean IOP was higher in the Ahmed group than the Molteno group (MD 1.64 mmHg, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.43; 57 participants; low-certainty evidence). The differences in logMAR visual acuity (MD 0.08 units, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.40; 57 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and mean deviation in visual field (MD -0.18 dB, 95% CI -3.13 to 2.77; 57 participants; very low-certainty evidence) were uncertain between groups. The mean number of antiglaucoma medications was also uncertain between groups (MD -0.38, 95% CI -1.03 to 0.27; 57 participants; low-certainty evidence). The trial did not report the proportion needing additional glaucoma surgery, total adverse events, or quality-of-life outcomes.Two trials compared the double-plate Molteno implant with the Schocket shunt for glaucoma; one trial reported outcomes only at six-month follow-up, and the other did not specify the follow-up time. At six-months, mean IOP was lower in the Molteno group than the Schocket group (MD -2.50 mmHg, 95% CI -4.60 to -0.40; 115 participants; low-certainty evidence). Neither trial reported the proportion needing additional glaucoma surgery, total adverse events, or visual acuity, visual field, or quality-of-life outcomes.The remaining 18 trials evaluated modifications to aqueous shunts, including 14 trials of Ahmed implants (early aqueous suppression versus standard medication regimen, 2 trials; anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agent versus none, 4 trials; corticosteroids versus none, 2 trials; shunt augmentation versus none, 3 trials; partial tube ligation versus none, 1 trial; pars plana implantation versus conventional implantation, 1 trial; and model M4 versus model S2,1 trial); 1 trial of 500 mm(2) Baerveldt versus 350 mm(2) Baerveldt; and 3 trials of Molteno implants (single-plate with oral corticosteroids versus single-plate without oral corticosteroids, 1 trial; double-plate versus single-plate, 1 trial; and pressure-ridge versus double-plate with tube ligation, 1 trial). Information was insufficient to conclude whether there are differences between aqueous shunts and trabeculectomy for glaucoma treatment. While the Baerveldt implant may lower IOP more than the Ahmed implant, the evidence was of moderate-certainty and it is unclear whether the difference in IOP reduction is clinically significant. Overall, methodology and data quality among existing randomized controlled trials of aqueous shunts was heterogeneous across studies, and there are no well-justified or widely accepted generalizations about the superiority of one surgical procedure or device over another.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 147 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 145 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 26 18%
Student > Bachelor 18 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 12%
Researcher 15 10%
Other 14 10%
Other 28 19%
Unknown 28 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 71 48%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 10%
Engineering 6 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 3%
Social Sciences 4 3%
Other 16 11%
Unknown 31 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 31 January 2020.
All research outputs
#995,147
of 15,542,315 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,799
of 11,212 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,808
of 271,123 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#98
of 254 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,542,315 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,212 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 271,123 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 254 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.