↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Mitomycin C versus 5-Fluorouracil for wound healing in glaucoma surgery

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

1 policy source
1 X user
1 Facebook page
3 Wikipedia pages


87 Dimensions

Readers on

190 Mendeley
Mitomycin C versus 5-Fluorouracil for wound healing in glaucoma surgery
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006259.pub2
Pubmed ID

Emily Cabourne, Jonathan CK Clarke, Patricio G Schlottmann, Jennifer R Evans


Raised intraocular pressure is a risk factor for glaucoma. One treatment option is glaucoma drainage surgery (trabeculectomy). Antimetabolites are used during surgery to reduce postoperative scarring during wound healing. Two agents in common use are mitomycin C (MMC) and 5-Fluorouracil (5-FU). To assess the effects of MMC compared to 5-FU as an antimetabolite adjunct in trabeculectomy surgery. We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (2015 Issue 9), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to October 2015), EMBASE (January 1980 to October 2015), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS) (January 1982 to October 2015), the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 2 October 2015. We included randomised controlled trials where wound healing had been modified with MMC compared to 5-FU. Two review authors independently selected trials and collected data. The primary outcome was failure of a functioning trabeculectomy one year after surgery. Secondary outcomes included mean intraocular pressure at one year. We considered three subgroups: high risk of trabeculectomy failure (people with previous glaucoma surgery, extracapsular cataract surgery, African origin and people with secondary glaucoma or congenital glaucoma); medium risk of trabeculectomy failure (people undergoing trabeculectomy with extracapsular cataract surgery) and low risk of trabeculectomy failure (people who have received no previous surgical eye intervention). We identified 11 trials that enrolled 687 eyes of 679 participants. The studies were conducted in the United States, Europe, Asia and Africa. Five studies enrolled participants at low risk of trabeculectomy failure, five studies enrolled participants at high risk of failure, and one study enrolled people with both high and low risk of failure. None of the included trials enrolled participants with combined trabeculectomy/cataract surgery.We considered one study to be at low risk of bias in all domains, six studies to be at high risk of bias in one or more domains, and the remaining four studies to be at an unclear risk of bias in all domains.The risk of failure of trabeculectomy at one year after surgery was less in those participants who received MMC compared to those who received 5-FU, however the confidence intervals were wide and are compatible with no effect (risk ratio (RR) 0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.30 to 1.00; studies = 11; I(2) = 40%). There was no evidence for any difference between groups at high and low risk of failure (test for subgroup differences P = 0.69).On average, people treated with MMC had lower intraocular pressure at one year (mean difference (MD) -3.05 mmHg, 95% CI -4.60 to -1.50), but the studies were inconsistent (I(2) = 52%). The size of the effect was greater in the high-risk group (MD -4.18 mmHg, 95% CI -6.73 to -1.64) compared to the low-risk group (MD -1.72 mmHg, 95% CI -3.28 to -0.16), but again the test for interaction was not statistically significant (P = 0.11).Similar proportions of eyes treated with MMC lost 2 or more lines of visual acuity one year after surgery compared to 5-FU, but the confidence intervals were wide (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.06).Adverse events occurred relatively rarely, and estimates of effect were generally imprecise. There was some evidence for less epitheliopathy in the MMC group (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.47) and less hyphaema in the MMC group (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.91).None of the studies reported quality of life.Overall, we graded the quality of the evidence as low largely because of risk of bias in the included studies and imprecision in the estimate of effect. We found low-quality evidence that MMC may be more effective in achieving long-term lower intraocular pressure than 5-FU. Further comparative research on MMC and 5-FU is needed to enhance reliability and validity of the results shown in this review. Furthermore, the development of new agents that control postoperative scar tissue formation without side effects would be valuable and is justified by the results of this review.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 190 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 189 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 30 16%
Student > Bachelor 20 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 10%
Other 16 8%
Student > Postgraduate 14 7%
Other 38 20%
Unknown 53 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 79 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 2%
Neuroscience 4 2%
Other 23 12%
Unknown 62 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 January 2023.
All research outputs
of 23,504,694 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 12,710 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 287,164 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 304 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,504,694 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,710 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.0. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 287,164 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 304 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.