Visual Acuity Outcomes After Trans-scleral Cyclophotocoagulation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate best-corrected visual acuity (VA) outcomes following trans-scleral cyclophotocoagulation (TSCPC) in patients with refractory glaucoma. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: The full protocol was registered on PROSPERO (42023485891). The electronic databases OVID, MEDLINE, and EMBASE were searched using keywords related to TSCPC and visual acuity outcomes (start date to February 7, 2025). Meta-analysis was completed using random effects models and risk ratios to calculate pooled estimates. RESULTS: = 21.5%, P = .876). CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis suggests no significant decrease in VA after TSCPC, with a moderate degree of certainty. Larger amounts of total energy during TSCPC were found to be correlated with worse BCVA. However, given the substantial heterogeneity and observational nature of most studies, these findings should be interpreted with caution.
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 | 0.009 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.029 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".