Table.

GRADE Evaluation of interventions for Glaucoma: acute and chronic primary angle-closure.

Important outcomes	Disease progression
Studies (Participants)	Outcome	Comparison	Type of evidence	Quality	Consistency	Directness	Effect size	GRADE	Comment
What are the effects of treatment for primary acute angle-closure glaucoma?
1 (48)	Disease progression	Surgical treatment (any type) versus laser treatment (iridotomy or iridoplasty)	4	–2	0	0	0	Low	Quality points deducted for sparse data and incomplete reporting of results
What are the effects of treatment for primary chronic angle-closure glaucoma?
1 (126)	Disease progression	Laser peripheral iridoplasty plus laser peripheral iridotomy versus laser peripheral iridotomy alone	4	–2	0	0	0	Low	Quality points deducted for sparse data and weak methods (blinding, outcome assessment, follow-up)

We initially allocate 4 points to evidence from RCTs, and 2 points to evidence from observational studies. To attain the final GRADE score for a given comparison, points are deducted or added from this initial score based on preset criteria relating to the categories of quality, directness, consistency, and effect size. Quality: based on issues affecting methodological rigour (e.g., incomplete reporting of results, quasi-randomisation, sparse data [<200 people in the analysis]). Consistency: based on similarity of results across studies. Directness: based on generalisability of population or outcomes. Effect size: based on magnitude of effect as measured by statistics such as relative risk, odds ratio, or hazard ratio.