Prospective Randomized Study Comparing Ex-PRESS to Trabeculectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy and safety of the Ex-PRESS glaucoma shunt with standard trabeculectomy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Consenting patients with medically uncontrolled open-angle glaucoma were prospectively randomized to trabeculectomy or Ex-PRESS shunt both with mitomycin-C. Exclusion criteria included previous ocular surgery with the exception of clear cornea phaco or 1 previous trabeculectomy, uveitis, and vitreous in the anterior chamber. Standardized data collection sheets were completed at baseline and postoperative day 1, weeks 1 and 2, and months 1, 2, 3, 6, and 12. Primary outcome was intraocular pressure (IOP). Complete success was defined as an IOP between 5 and 18 mm Hg and a 20% reduction from baseline without medication. A sample size calculation determined that 52 eyes were required to detect a 2.0 mm Hg IOP difference with a power of 80%. RESULTS: Sixty-four subjects were enrolled, 33 in the Ex-PRESS and 31 in the trabeculectomy group. IOP was not statistically significantly different between groups. Baseline and 1-year mean IOP was 22.0±6.8 versus 22.7±10.3 mm Hg (P=0.76) and 11.6±4.5 versus 11.3±4.5 mm Hg (P=0.81) in the trabeculectomy versus Ex-PRESS groups, respectively. Complete success was 57% versus 70% (P=0.28) in the trabeculectomy versus Ex-PRESS groups, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences in surgical time, number of glaucoma medications, visual acuity, central corneal thickness, endothelial cell counts, complications, interventions, or bleb morphology between the trabeculectomy and the Ex-PRESS groups. CONCLUSIONS: There was no statistically significant difference between the trabeculectomy and Ex-PRESS groups regarding IOP, success rates, complications, additional interventions, and bleb morphology.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".