Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Comparison 1 Argon laser trabeculoplasty versus medication in newly diagnosed participants, Outcome 1 Failure to control IOP.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Argon laser trabeculoplasty versus medication in newly diagnosed participants, Outcome 1 Failure to control IOP.

Comparison 1 Argon laser trabeculoplasty versus medication in newly diagnosed participants, Outcome 2 Visual field progression.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Argon laser trabeculoplasty versus medication in newly diagnosed participants, Outcome 2 Visual field progression.

Comparison 1 Argon laser trabeculoplasty versus medication in newly diagnosed participants, Outcome 3 Optic neuropathy progression.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Argon laser trabeculoplasty versus medication in newly diagnosed participants, Outcome 3 Optic neuropathy progression.

Comparison 1 Argon laser trabeculoplasty versus medication in newly diagnosed participants, Outcome 4 Adverse effects: PAS formation.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 Argon laser trabeculoplasty versus medication in newly diagnosed participants, Outcome 4 Adverse effects: PAS formation.

Comparison 2 Argon laser trabeculoplasty versus trabeculectomy, Outcome 1 Failure to control IOP.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 Argon laser trabeculoplasty versus trabeculectomy, Outcome 1 Failure to control IOP.

Comparison 2 Argon laser trabeculoplasty versus trabeculectomy, Outcome 2 Failure to control IOP.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.2

Comparison 2 Argon laser trabeculoplasty versus trabeculectomy, Outcome 2 Failure to control IOP.

Comparison 3 Diode laser trabeculoplasty versus argon laser trabeculoplasty, Outcome 1 Adverse effects: early intraocular pressure spikes.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.1

Comparison 3 Diode laser trabeculoplasty versus argon laser trabeculoplasty, Outcome 1 Adverse effects: early intraocular pressure spikes.

Table 1. Quality assessment of included studies

TRIAL

Selection bias

Performance bias

Detection bias

Attrition bias

AGIS

A

D

A

A

Bergea 1992

A

D

A

A

Blyth 1999

B

D

B

A

Brancato 1991

B

D

A

A

Chung 1998

A

D

B

A

Damji 1999

A

D

B

A

Elsas 1989

B

D

B

B

EMGT

A

D

A

A

Gandolfi 2005

B

D

B

A

GLT

A

D

A

A

Grayson 1993

B

D

C

C

Grayson 1994

B

D

C

C

Hugkulstone 1990

B

D

A

C

Moorfields PTT

A

D

A

B

Moriarty 1988

B

D

C

A

Rouhiainen 1988

A

D

C

B

Sherwood 1987

A

D

A

A

Smith 1984

B

D

B

B

Watson 1984

A

D

C

C

Figuras y tablas -
Table 1. Quality assessment of included studies
Comparison 1. Argon laser trabeculoplasty versus medication in newly diagnosed participants

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Failure to control IOP Show forest plot

3

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.1 at 6 months

2

624

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.38 [0.24, 0.61]

1.2 at 24 months

3

735

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.80 [0.71, 0.91]

2 Visual field progression Show forest plot

2

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

2.1 at 24 months

2

624

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.70 [0.42, 1.16]

3 Optic neuropathy progression Show forest plot

2

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

3.1 at 24 months

2

624

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.71 [0.38, 1.34]

4 Adverse effects: PAS formation Show forest plot

2

624

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

11.15 [5.63, 22.09]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 1. Argon laser trabeculoplasty versus medication in newly diagnosed participants
Comparison 2. Argon laser trabeculoplasty versus trabeculectomy

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Failure to control IOP Show forest plot

2

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.1 at 6 months

2

819

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

3.14 [1.60, 6.18]

1.2 at 24 months

2

901

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.03 [1.38, 2.98]

2 Failure to control IOP Show forest plot

2

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

2.1 at 6 months

2

819

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

3.13 [1.59, 6.16]

2.2 at 24 months

2

901

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

2.78 [0.74, 10.43]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 2. Argon laser trabeculoplasty versus trabeculectomy
Comparison 3. Diode laser trabeculoplasty versus argon laser trabeculoplasty

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Adverse effects: early intraocular pressure spikes Show forest plot

3

110

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.66 [0.21, 2.14]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 3. Diode laser trabeculoplasty versus argon laser trabeculoplasty