| Methods |
Randomised controlled trial |
| Participants |
158 patients from a Chinese population |
| Interventions |
Laser peripheral iridotomy and laser peripheral iridoplasty versus laser peripheral iridotomy |
| Outcomes |
Pre and post (1 year) intraocular pressure (IOP), IOP reduction, extent of peripheral anterior synechiae, best corrected visual acuity, visual field mean deviation, corneal endothelial cell count, number of medications, need for surgery |
| Notes |
|
| Risk of bias |
| Bias |
Authors' judgement |
Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) |
Low risk |
Consecutive cases of primary angle‐closure and primary angle‐closure glaucoma patients seeking treatment who fit the inclusion criteria were recruited. Treatment intervention was randomised |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) |
Low risk |
Investigators who made the diagnoses were not aware of the participant's treatment assignment |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes |
High risk |
Masking was not possible due to the nature of the intervention |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes |
High risk |
Technicians who measured IOP outcomes were masked to group assignment. Investigators evaluating the opening of the anterior chamber angle (gonioscopy) were not masked |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes |
Low risk |
Rates of follow up was reasonable with 79.7% of the included population completing one year follow‐up. Both cohorts were similar in one year follow‐up rates, 79.2% in the iridotomy group and 80.2% in the iridotomy plus iridoplasty group. Reason for loss to follow up was not mentioned. An analysis carrying the last observation forward was conducted and the results did not change |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) |
Low risk |
Outcome reporting in this study appears to be sufficiently complete in this study |
| Other bias |
Unclear risk |
None found |
