Extraction form for project: Screening for Glaucoma in Adults - 1 of 2

Design Details

1. Study design

Arms

Arm NameArm Description
A. Selective laser trabeculoplasty (SLT): amethocaine 1%, then inferior 90˚ (25-30 spots, n=35)
B. Selective laser trabeculoplasty (SLT): amethocaine 1%, then inferior 180˚ (48-53, n=49)
C. Selective laser trabeculoplasty (SLT): amethocaine 1%, then 360˚ (93-102, n=44)
D. Selective laser trabeculoplasty (SLT): amethocaine 1%, then latanoprost 0.005% (n=39)

Sample Characteristics

1. N
A. Selective laser trabeculoplasty (SLT): amethocaine 1%, then inferior 90˚ (25-30 spots, n=35)
B. Selective laser trabeculoplasty (SLT): amethocaine 1%, then inferior 180˚ (48-53, n=49)
C. Selective laser trabeculoplasty (SLT): amethocaine 1%, then 360˚ (93-102, n=44)
D. Selective laser trabeculoplasty (SLT): amethocaine 1%, then latanoprost 0.005% (n=39)
Total
2. Baseline population
A. Selective laser trabeculoplasty (SLT): amethocaine 1%, then inferior 90˚ (25-30 spots, n=35)
B. Selective laser trabeculoplasty (SLT): amethocaine 1%, then inferior 180˚ (48-53, n=49)
C. Selective laser trabeculoplasty (SLT): amethocaine 1%, then 360˚ (93-102, n=44)
D. Selective laser trabeculoplasty (SLT): amethocaine 1%, then latanoprost 0.005% (n=39)
Total

Outcomes

TypeDomainSpecific measurement (i.e., tool/definition/specific outcome)PopulationsTimepoints
CategoricalVision disorder20% intraocular pressure (IOP) reduction vs. baseline with no additional antiglaucomatous interventions
  • All Participants
  • end of study

Risk of Bias Assessment

1. Random assignment
2. Allocation concealed
3. Groups similar at baseline
4. Eligibility criteria specified
5. Blinding: outcome assessors or data analysts
6. Intention-to-treat analysis
7. Reporting of attrition, contamination, etc.
8. Differential loss to followup or overall high loss to followup
9. Appropriate analysis including cluster correlation
10. Funding source
11. Randomization adequate?
12. Allocation concealment adequate?
13. Groups similar at baseline?
14. Eligibility criteria specified?
15. Outcome assessors masked?
16. Care provider masked?
17. Patient masked?
18. Attrition and withdrawals reported?
19. Loss to followup differential/ high?
20. People analyzed in the groups in which they were randomized?
21. Quality

Results

Categorical


Vision disorder (20% intraocular pressure (IOP) reduction vs. baseline with no additional antiglaucomatous interventions)

All Participants
Descriptive StatisticsBetween Arm Comparisons
A. Selective laser trabeculoplasty (SLT): amethocaine 1%, then inferior 90˚ (25-30 spots, n=35)B. Selective laser trabeculoplasty (SLT): amethocaine 1%, then inferior 180˚ (48-53, n=49)C. Selective laser trabeculoplasty (SLT): amethocaine 1%, then 360˚ (93-102, n=44) D. Selective laser trabeculoplasty (SLT): amethocaine 1%, then latanoprost 0.005% (n=39)
end of study
Percentage
Odds Ratio (OR)
95% CI low (OR)
95% CI high (OR)
p value
Within Arm ComparisonsNet Comparisons
A. Selective laser trabeculoplasty (SLT): amethocaine 1%, then inferior 90˚ (25-30 spots, n=35)B. Selective laser trabeculoplasty (SLT): amethocaine 1%, then inferior 180˚ (48-53, n=49)C. Selective laser trabeculoplasty (SLT): amethocaine 1%, then 360˚ (93-102, n=44) D. Selective laser trabeculoplasty (SLT): amethocaine 1%, then latanoprost 0.005% (n=39)