MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4412705848 · doi:10.1016/j.jcjo.2025.06.003

Anterior chamber paracentesis for increased intraocular pressure with intravitreal injections: systematic review and meta-analysis

2025· article· en· W4412705848 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Michele Zaman, Sarah Abdullah Alowedi, Sanjay Sharma

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Ophthalmology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRetinal Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParacentesisMeta-analysisMedicineOphthalmologyIntraocular pressureSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Intravitreal injections (IVIs) can cause a transient asymptomatic spike in intraocular pressure (IOP), which may cause irreversible damage to the patient's optic nerve. Anterior chamber paracentesis (ACP) is a well-established method to lower IOP. We aim to systematically review the literature, assessing the safety and efficacy of ACP for increased IOP with IVI of antivascular endothelial growth factor medications. METHODS: The following databases were used: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL. Articles were included if they had human participants and discussed the use of ACP for increased IOP during IVIs. Key terms searched were anterior chamber paracentesis, intravitreal injections, and intraocular pressure. RESULTS: Our search captured 236 articles, and ultimately 13 studies were included in our review. Six studies were included in our meta-analysis of studies that reported the IOP after 30 minutes post-ACP. Ten included studies reported that ACP is a safe and effective procedure that lowers the IOP of patients during the IVI process. The overall pooled effect size is significant for IOP measurements 30 minutes after ACP is -1.54 with a 95% CI of -2.20 to -0.88 mm Hg, 5 minutes after ACP is -2.37 with a 95% CI of -2.77 to -1.97 mm Hg and 2 minutes after ACP is -5.09 with a 95% CI of -8.48 to -1.70 mm Hg. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, performing an ACP is a safe and effective way to reduce the transient spike in IOP after IVIs. However, this procedure is not without the potential for complications.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0210.040
Bibliometrics0.0080.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.287 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Ophthalmology→Same topicRetinal Diseases and Treatments→French-language works237,207→