Structured Abstract

Contents

• Preface
• Acknowledgments
• Key Informants
• Technical Expert Panel
• Peer Reviewers
• Executive Summary
• Introduction
  • Background
  • Treatments for Open-Angle Glaucoma
  • Rationale for a Comparative Effectiveness Review
  • Purpose of Evidence Report
  • Key Questions
• Methods
  • Topic Development
  • Analytic Framework
  • Study Selection
  • Rating Body of Evidence
  • Data Synthesis
• Results
  • Medical Treatment of Open-Angle Glaucoma
  • Surgical Treatment of Open-Angle Glaucoma
  • Medical Versus Surgical Treatment of Open-Angle Glaucoma
• Discussion
• Future Research Needs
  • Lack of Association Between Treatment and Visual Impairment
  • Lack of Association Between Treatment and Patient-Reported Outcomes
  • Assessment of the Relative Risks and Benefits of Treatment
• References
• Abbreviations
• Appendixes
  • Appendix A Search Strategy
  • Appendix B Screening and Data Abstraction Forms
  • Appendix C Evidence Tables
  • Appendix D Excluded Articles
  • Appendix E Included Devices and Medications

Prepared for: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services¹, Contract No. HHSA 290-2007-10061-I, Prepared by: Johns Hopkins University Evidence-based Practice Center, Baltimore, Maryland

Suggested citation:

Boland MV, Ervin AM, Friedman D, Jampel H, Hawkins B, Volenweider D, Chelladurai Y, Ward D, Suarez-Cuervo C, Robinson KA. Treatment for Glaucoma: Comparative Effectiveness. Comparative Effectiveness Review No. 60. (Prepared by the Johns Hopkins University Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. HHSA 290-2007-10061-I.) AHRQ Publication No. 12-EHC038-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. April 2012. www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/reports/final.cfm.

This report is based on research conducted by the Johns Hopkins University Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) under contract to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Rockville, MD (Contract No. HHSA 290-2007-10061-I). The findings and conclusions in this document are those of the authors, who are responsible for its contents; the findings and conclusions do not necessarily represent the views of AHRQ. Therefore, no statement in this report should be construed as an official position of AHRQ or of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

The information in this report is intended to help health care decisionmakers—patients and clinicians, health system leaders, and policymakers, among others—make well-informed decisions and thereby improve the quality of health care services. This report is not intended to be a substitute for the application of clinical judgment. Anyone who makes decisions concerning the provision of clinical care should consider this report in the same way as any medical reference and in conjunction with all other pertinent information, i.e., in the context of available resources and circumstances presented by individual patients.

This report may be used, in whole or in part, as the basis for development of clinical practice guidelines and other quality enhancement tools, or as a basis for reimbursement and coverage policies. AHRQ or U.S. Department of Health and Human Services endorsement of such derivative products may not be stated or implied.

None of the investigators has any affiliations or financial involvement that conflicts with the material presented in this report.

1

540 Gaither Road, Rockville, MD 20850; www​.ahrq.gov