MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403978384 · doi:10.1155/2024/8617959

Efficacy and Safety of Aurolab Aqueous Drainage Implant Compared With Baerveldt Glaucoma Implant for Refractory Glaucoma at One Year: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

2024· review· en· W4403978384 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Ophthalmology · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlaucoma and retinal disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGlaucomaRefractory (planetary science)ImplantMeta-analysisDrainageOphthalmologySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Glaucoma stands as a prominent contributor to irreversible vision impairment on a global scale. For decades, the Baerveldt Glaucoma Implant (BGI) has been used to treat refractory glaucoma. Yet, the cost‐effective Aurolab Aqueous Drainage Implant (AADI) has gained clinical attention as a viable alternative for managing glaucoma. Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of AADI and BGI in the treatment of refractory glaucoma. Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, we conducted a systematic search of multiple databases, identifying relevant comparative studies assessing AADI versus BGI in patients with refractory glaucoma. Key outcomes included postoperative IOP, surgical success rates, antiglaucoma medication reduction (AGMR), and complication rates. Quality assessment was performed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS). Results: Three studies comprised a total of 176 individuals with refractory glaucoma, with 107 patients receiving the AADI and 69 patients receiving the BGI. The meta‐analysis revealed a statistically borderline significant reduction in postoperative IOP favoring the AADI at 3 months (mean difference [MD] = −2.74, p = 0.05). There was no significant difference in the MD of AGMR between the AADI and BGI groups. The rates of total complications and surgical success did not differ significantly between the AADI and BGI groups. Conclusion: AADI demonstrates promising results in reducing IOP at 3 months compared to BGI, with comparable surgical outcomes and complication rates over the long term. Further studies with larger samples are warranted to validate these findings and assess cost‐effectiveness, particularly in developing countries.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.760
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.295 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it