Primary trabeculectomy versus primary glaucoma eye drops for newly diagnosed advanced glaucoma: TAGS RCT

King, Anthony J; Fernie, Gordon; Hudson, Jemma; Kernohan, Ashleigh; Azuara-Blanco, Augusto; Burr, Jennifer; Homer, Tara; Shabaninejad, Hosein; Sparrow, John M; Garway-Heath, David; Barton, Keith; Norrie, John; McDonald, Alison; Vale, Luke; MacLennan, Graeme

doi:10.3310/hta25720

Graphic version of this page | Change how these pages look

Journals Library

NHS NIHR - National Institute for Health Research

Journals

Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
Email

An error occurred retrieving publication content to display, please try again.

Home >> Journals >> Health Technology Assessment >> Page Not Found

Page not found (404)

Sorry - the page you requested could not be found.

Please choose a page from the navigation or try a website search above to find the information you need.

Home >> Journals >> Health Technology Assessment >> Volume {{metadata.Volume}} >> Issue {{metadata.Issue}}
Extended Research Article
i

Toolkit

View Award

This trial found no evidence of a difference in visual health-related quality of life between trabeculectomy or glaucoma drops at 24 months.

Detailed Author information
Detailed Author information

Anthony J King ^1,^*, Gordon Fernie ², Jemma Hudson ², Ashleigh Kernohan ³, Augusto Azuara-Blanco ⁴, Jennifer Burr ⁵, Tara Homer ³, Hosein Shabaninejad ³, John M Sparrow ⁶, David Garway-Heath ^7,⁸, Keith Barton ^7,⁸, John Norrie ⁹, Alison McDonald ², Luke Vale ³, Graeme MacLennan ²

¹ Department of Ophthalmology, Nottingham University Hospital, Nottingham, UK
² Centre for Healthcare Randomised Trials (CHaRT), Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
³ Health Economics Group, Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
⁴ Centre for Public Health, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, UK
⁵ School of Medicine, Medical and Biological Sciences, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, UK
⁶ Bristol Eye Hospital, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK
⁷ Institute of Ophthalmology, University College London, London, UK
⁸ Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
⁹ Edinburgh Clinical Trials Unit, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
^* Corresponding author Email: anthony.king@nottingham.ac.uk

Funding: {{metadata.Funding}}

{{metadata.Journal}} Volume: {{metadata.Volume}}, Issue: {{metadata.Issue}}, Published in {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'MMMM yyyy'}}

https://doi.org/{{metadata.DOI}}

Citation:{{author}}{{ (($index < metadata.AuthorsArray.length-1) && ($index <=6)) ? ', ' : '' }}{{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length <= 6) ? '.' : '' }} {{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length > 6) ? 'et al. ' : ''}}. {{metadata.JournalShortName}} {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'yyyy'}};{{metadata.Volume}}({{metadata.Issue}})

[Image - Crossmark status check]

Report Content

Full Report
Abstract
Plain English Summary
Plain Language Summary
Scientific Summary

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Toolkit section on this page.

Responses to this report

No responses have been published.

If you would like to submit a response to this publication, please do so using the form below:

Comments submitted to the NIHR Journals Library are electronic letters to the editor. They enable our readers to debate issues raised in research reports published in the Journals Library. We aim to post within 14 working days all responses that contribute substantially to the topic investigated, as determined by the Editors. Non-relevant comments will be deleted.

Your name and affiliations will be published with your comment.

Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. The Editors may add, remove, or edit comments at their absolute discretion.

Enter response message*
Name (title, first name, last name)*
Occupation / Job title*
Affiliation / Employer*
Email*
Other authors
For example, if you are responding as a team or group. Please ensure you include full names and separate these using commas
Statement of competing interestsWe believe that readers should be aware of any competing interests (conflicts of interest).The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) define competing interests as including: financial relationships with industry (for example through employment, consultancies, stock, ownership, honoraria, and expert testimony), either directly or through immediate family; personal relationships; academic competition; and intellectual passion.
If yes, please provide details below
Enter response title*
Enter CAPTCHA What is twenty divided by four?*

By submitting your response, you are stating that you agree to the terms & conditions

An error has occurred in processing the XML document