Richard Wormald’s research while affiliated with Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and other places

Prologue Glaucoma surgery has been, for many decades now, dominated by the universal gold standard which is trabeculectomy augmented with antimetabolites. Tubes also came into the scene to complement what we use to call conventional or traditional glaucoma surgery. More recently we experienced a changing glaucoma surgery environment with the “advent” of what we have become used to calling Minimally Invasive Glaucoma Surgery (MIGS). What is the unmet need, what is the gap that these newcomers aim to fill? Hippocrates taught us “bring benefit, not harm” and new glaucoma techniques and devices aim to provide safer surgery compared to conventional surgery. For the patient, but also for the clinician, safety is important. Is more safety achieved with new glaucoma surgery and, if so, is it associated with better, equivalent, or worse efficacy? Is new glaucoma surgery intended to replace conventional surgery or to complement it as an ‘add-on’ to what clinicians already have in their hands to manage glaucoma? Which surgery should be chosen for which patient? What are the options? Are they equivalent? These are too many questions for the clinician! What are the answers to the questions? What is the evidence to support answers? Do we need more evidence and how can we produce high-quality evidence? This EGS Guide explores the changing and challenging glaucoma surgery environment aiming to provide answers to these questions. The EGS uses four words to highlight a continuum: Innovation, Education, Communication, and Implementation. Translating innovation to successful implementation is crucially important and requires high-quality evidence to ensure steps forward to a positive impact on health care when it comes to implementation. The vision of EGS is to provide the best possible well-being and minimal glaucomainduced visual disability in individuals with glaucoma within an affordable healthcare system. In this regard, assessing the changes in glaucoma surgery is a pivotal contribution to better care. As mentioned, this Guide aims to provide answers to the crucial questions above. However, every clinician is aware that answers may differ for every person: an individualised approach is needed. Therefore, there will be no uniform answer for all situations and all patients. Clinicians would need, through the clinical method and possibly some algorithm, to reach answers and decisions at the individual level. In this regard, evidence is needed to support clinicians to make decisions. Of key importance in this Guide is to provide an overview of existing evidence on glaucoma surgery and specifically on recent innovations and novel devices, but also to set standards in surgical design and reporting for future studies on glaucoma surgical innovation. Designing studies in surgery is particularly challenging because of many subtle variations inherent to surgery and hence multiple factors involved in the outcome, but even more because one needs to define carefully outcomes relevant to the research question but also to the future translation into clinical practice. In addition this Guide aims to provide clinical recommendations on novel procedures already in use when insufficient evidence exists. EGS has a long tradition to provide guidance to the ophthalmic community in Europe and worldwide through the EGS Guidelines (now in their 5th Edition). The EGS leadership recognized that the changing environment in glaucoma surgery currently represents a major challenge for the clinician, needing specific guidance. Therefore, the decision was made to issue this Guide on Glaucoma Surgery in order to help clinicians to make appropriate decisions for their patients and also to provide the framework and guidance for researchers to improve the quality of evidence in future studies. Ultimately this Guide will support better Glaucoma Care in accordance with EGS’s Vision and Mission. Fotis Topouzis EGS President Contributors All contributors have provided the appropriate COI visible in detail at www.eugs.org/pages/guidesurgical/ This manuscript reflects the work and thoughts of the list of individuals recognized above, but importantly, it reflects EGS views on the subject matter. Its strength originates from a team effort, where a cohesive group of authors and reviewers have worked towards a common goal and now stand behind the text in its entirety. The EGS nevertheless wishes to thank the following external contributors for their additional expertise, which was particularly valuable to the development of this Surgical Guide: Amanda Bicket, Jonathan Bonnar, Catey Bunce, Kuan Hu, Sheffinea Koshy, Jimmy Le, Tianjing Li, Francisco Otarola, Riaz Qureshi, Anupa Shah, Richard Stead and Marta Toth. A particular appreciation goes to Ian Saldanha for drafting the introductory overview on Core Outcomes on chapter 8. Finally, EGS would like to acknowledge Augusto Azuara Blanco, Chair of the Scientific and Guidelines Committee, for his expertise and advisory role throughout the entire process. Luis Abegao Pinto Editor Gordana Sunaric Mégevand Editor Ingeborg Stalmans Editor Luis Abegao Pinto , Centro Hospitalar Universitário Lisboa Norte Hana Abouzeid , Clinical Eye Research Centre Adolph de Rothschild, AZ Ophthalmologie Eleftherios Anastasopoulos , Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Papageorgiou Hospital, Thessaloniki, Greece Augusto Azuara Blanco , Centre for Public Health, Queen’s University Belfast Luca Bagnasco , Clinica Oculistica, DiNOGMI University of Genoa Alessandro Bagnis , Clinica Oculistica, IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino Joao Barbosa Breda , Faculty of Medicine of the University of Porto, Porto, Portugal. Centro Hospitalar e Universitário São João, Porto, Portugal. KULeuven, Belgium Keith Barton , University College London, Moorfields Eye Hospital Amanda Bicket , University of Michigan (Ann Arbor, MI, USA) Jonathan Bonnar , Belfast Health and Social Care Trust Chiara Bonzano , Clinica Oculistica, IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino Rupert Bourne , Cambridge University Hospital Alain Bron , University Hospital Dijon Catey Bunce , King’s College London Carlo Cutolo , Clinica Oculistica, DiNOGMI University of Genoa, and IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino Barbara Cvenkel , University Medical Centre Ljubljana Faculty of Medicine, University of Ljubljana Antonio Fea , University of Turin Theodoros Filippopoulos , Athens Vision Eye Institute Panayiota Founti , Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Stefano Gandolfi , U.O.C. Oculistica, University of Parma Julian Garcia Feijoo , Hospital Clinico San Carlos, Universidad Complutense, Madrid Gerhard Garhoefer , Medical University of Vienna, Austria David Garway Heath , Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London. Institute of Ophthalmology, University College London. Gus Gazzard , Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London. Institute of Ophthalmology, University College London. Stylianos Georgoulas , Addenbrooke’s, Cambridge University Hospitals Dimitrios Giannoulis , Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, AHEPA Hospital, Thessaloniki, Greece Franz Grehn , University Hospitals Wuerzburg Kuang Hu , NIHR Moorfields Biomedical Research Centre, London – Institute of Ophthalmology – University College London Michele Iester , Clinica Oculistica, DiNOGMI University of Genoa, and IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino Hari Jayaram , Moorfields Eye Hospital Gauti Johannesson , Umea University Stylianos Kandarakis , National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, G. Gennimatas Hospital, Athens, Greece. Efthymios Karmiris , Hellenic Air Force General Hospital & National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, G. Gennimatas Hospital, Athens Alan Kastner , Clinica Oftalmologica Pasteur, Santiago, Chile Andreas Katsanos , University of Ioannina, Greece Christina Keskini , Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, AHEPA Hospital Anthony Khawaja , Moorfields Eye Hospital and UCL Institute of Ophthalmology Anthony King , Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust James Kirwan , Portsmouth hospitals university NHS trust Miriam Kolko , University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen University Hospital Rigshospitalet Sheffinea Koshy , University of Galway Antoine Labbe , Quinze-Vingts ­National Ophthalmology Hospital Jimmy Le , Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore Sanna Leinonen , Tays Eye Centre, Tampere University Hospital Sophie Lemmens , University Hospitals UZ Leuven Tianjing Li , School of Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus Giorgio Marchini , Clinica Oculistica, University Hospital, AOUI, Verona, Italy José Martinez De La Casa , Hospital Clinico San Carlos. Universidad Complutense Andy McNaught , Gloucestershire Eye Unit Frances Meier Gibbons , Eye Center Rapperswil, Switzerland Karl Mercieca , University Hospitals Eye Clinic, Bonn, Germany Manuele Michelessi , IRCCS – Fondazione Bietti Stefano Miglior , University of Milan Bicocca Eleni Nikita , Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Francesco Oddone , IRCCS ­Fondazione Bietti Francisco Otarola , Universidad de La Frontera Marta Pazos , Institute of Ophthalmology. Hospital Clínic Barcelona. Researcher at Institut d’Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi i Sunyer (IDIBAPS) Norbert Pfeiffer , Mainz University Medical Center Verena Prokosh , University of Cologne, Center for ophthalmology. Riaz Qureshi , Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore Gokulan Ratnarajan , Queen Victoria Hospital, East Grinstead, UK Herbert Reitsamer , University Clinic Salzburg / SALK Luca Rossetti , University of Milan, ASST Santi Paolo e Carlo, Milano, Italy Ian Saldanha , Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore Cedric Schweitzer , CHU Bordeaux, Univ. Bordeaux, ISPED, INSERM, U1219 – Bordeaux Population Health Research Centre, France Andrew Scott , Moorfields Eye Hospital London Riccardo Scotto , Clinica Oculistica, DiNOGMI University of Genoa Anupa Shah , Queen’s University Belfast George Spaeth , Wills Eye Hospital/Sidney Kimmel Medical College/Thomas Jefferson University Ingeborg Stalmans , University Hospitals UZ Leuven, Catholic University KU Leuven Richard Stead, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust Francesco Stringa , University Hospital Southampton NHS FT Gordana Sunaric , Centre Ophtalmologique de Florissant, Centre de Recherche Clinique en Ophtalmologie Mémorial Adolphe de Rothschild Andrew Tatham , University of Edinburgh, Princess Alexandra Eye Pavilion Mark Toeteberg , University Hospital Zurich Fotis Topouzis , Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, AHEPA Hospital Marta Toth , Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Carlo Traverso , Clinica Oculistica, DiNOGMI University of Genoa, and IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino Anja Tuulonen , Tays Eye Centre, Tampere University Hospital Clemens Vass , Medical University of Vienna Ananth Viswanathan , Moorfields Eye Hospital NHSFT and UCL Institute of Ophthalmology Richard Wormald , UCL Institute of Ophthalmology External Reviewers American Glaucoma Society Asia-Pacific Glaucoma Society Middle East Africa Glaucoma Society World Glaucoma Society www.eugs.org/pages/externalreviewers The team of Clinica Oculistica of the University of Genoa for medical editing and illustration Luca Bagnasco Alessandro Bagnis Chiara Bonzano Carlo Cutolo Michele Iester Riccardo Scotto Carlo Traverso

IMPORTANCE: Despite persistent inequalities in access to eye care services globally, guidance on a set of recommended, evidence-based eye care interventions to support country health care planning has not been available. To overcome this barrier, the World Health Organization (WHO) Package of Eye Care Interventions (PECI) has been developed. OBJECTIVE: To describe the key outcomes of the PECI development. EVIDENCE REVIEW: A standardized stepwise approach that included the following stages: (1) selection of priority eye conditions by an expert panel after reviewing epidemiological evidence and health facility data; (2) identification of interventions and related evidence for the selected eye conditions from a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs); stage 2 included a systematic literature search, screening of title and abstracts (excluding articles that were not relevant CPGs), full-text review to assess disclosure of conflicts of interest and affiliations, quality appraisal, and data extraction; (3) expert review of the evidence extracted in stage 2, identification of missed interventions, and agreement on the inclusion of essential interventions suitable for implementation in low- and middle-income resource settings; and (4) peer review. FINDINGS: Fifteen priority eye conditions were chosen. The literature search identified 3601 articles. Of these, 469 passed title and abstract screening, 151 passed full-text screening, 98 passed quality appraisal, and 87 were selected for data extraction. Little evidence (≤1 CPG identified) was available for pterygium, keratoconus, congenital eyelid disorders, vision rehabilitation, myopic macular degeneration, ptosis, entropion, and ectropion. In stage 3, domain-specific expert groups voted to include 135 interventions (57%) of a potential 235 interventions collated from stage 2. After synthesis across all interventions and eye conditions, 64 interventions (13 health promotion and education, 6 screening and prevention, 38 treatment, and 7 rehabilitation) were included in the PECI. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This systematic review of CPGs for priority eye conditions, followed by an expert consensus procedure, identified 64 essential, evidence-based, eye care interventions that are required to achieve universal eye health coverage. The review identified some important gaps, including a paucity of high-quality, English-language CPGs, for several eye diseases and a dearth of evidence-based recommendations on eye health promotion and prevention within existing CPGs.

Importance Despite persistent inequalities in access to eye care services globally, guidance on a set of recommended, evidence-based eye care interventions to support country health care planning has not been available. To overcome this barrier, the World Health Organization (WHO) Package of Eye Care Interventions (PECI) has been developed. Objective To describe the key outcomes of the PECI development. Evidence Review A standardized stepwise approach that included the following stages: (1) selection of priority eye conditions by an expert panel after reviewing epidemiological evidence and health facility data; (2) identification of interventions and related evidence for the selected eye conditions from a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs); stage 2 included a systematic literature search, screening of title and abstracts (excluding articles that were not relevant CPGs), full-text review to assess disclosure of conflicts of interest and affiliations, quality appraisal, and data extraction; (3) expert review of the evidence extracted in stage 2, identification of missed interventions, and agreement on the inclusion of essential interventions suitable for implementation in low- and middle-income resource settings; and (4) peer review. Findings Fifteen priority eye conditions were chosen. The literature search identified 3601 articles. Of these, 469 passed title and abstract screening, 151 passed full-text screening, 98 passed quality appraisal, and 87 were selected for data extraction. Little evidence (≤1 CPG identified) was available for pterygium, keratoconus, congenital eyelid disorders, vision rehabilitation, myopic macular degeneration, ptosis, entropion, and ectropion. In stage 3, domain-specific expert groups voted to include 135 interventions (57%) of a potential 235 interventions collated from stage 2. After synthesis across all interventions and eye conditions, 64 interventions (13 health promotion and education, 6 screening and prevention, 38 treatment, and 7 rehabilitation) were included in the PECI. Conclusions and Relevance This systematic review of CPGs for priority eye conditions, followed by an expert consensus procedure, identified 64 essential, evidence-based, eye care interventions that are required to achieve universal eye health coverage. The review identified some important gaps, including a paucity of high-quality, English-language CPGs, for several eye diseases and a dearth of evidence-based recommendations on eye health promotion and prevention within existing CPGs.

Purpose People of African Caribbean Descent (ACD) have a higher prevalence of glaucoma compared to people of European Descent (ED) and there is uncertainty if treatment outcomes are equivalent between the two groups. To assess surgical failure rates comparing ACD with ED focusing on trabeculectomy, aqueous shunt implantation, non-penetrating filtering surgery (NPFS), and minimally invasive glaucoma surgery (MIGS) by performing a systematic review in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines and to determine whether there is any evidence in to show a difference in success rates based on race. Methods A systematic review of articles using the CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases was completed. Additional studies were identified by contacting clinical experts and searching bibliographies. All retrospective and prospective studies on trabeculectomy, aqueous shunt implantation, NPFS, and MIGS that included at least 20% ACD were included. Two review authors independently screened search results for eligibility and inclusion and extracted the data using pre-determined fields. Results A total of 76 studies were identified for inclusion in the review. Glaucoma surgical outcomes in ACD appear to be poorer compared to ED overall, particularly for trabeculectomy. Data on NPFS are limited, but the studies completed thus far demonstrate surprisingly good results for ACD, particularly when compared to ED, who have significantly lower pre-operative IOPs. Evidence from studies investigating aqueous shunts does not suggest that ACD have poorer outcomes than ED. There is not enough data on MIGS to provide a significant conclusion. Conclusion In a population where trabeculectomy may no longer be the gold standard, sufficiently powered studies assessing surgical outcomes in aqueous shunts, NPFS, and MIGS are needed to guide clinicians.

Background: Open-angle glaucoma (OAG) is an important cause of blindness worldwide. Laser trabeculoplasty, a treatment modality, still does not have a clear position in the treatment sequence. Objectives: To assess the effects of laser trabeculoplasty for treating OAG and ocular hypertension (OHT) when compared to medication, glaucoma surgery or no intervention. We also wished to compare the effectiveness of different laser trabeculoplasty technologies for treating OAG and OHT. Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2021, Issue 10); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; the ISRCTN registry; LILACS, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP. The date of the search was 28 October 2021. We also contacted researchers in the field. Selection criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing laser trabeculoplasty with no intervention, with medical treatment, or with surgery in people with OAG or OHT. We also included trials comparing different types of laser trabeculoplasty technologies. Data collection and analysis: We used standard methods expected by Cochrane. Two authors screened search results and extracted data independently. We considered the following outcomes at 24 months: failure to control intraocular pressure (IOP), failure to stabilise visual field progression, failure to stabilise optic neuropathy progression, adverse effects, quality of life, and costs. We graded the 'certainty' of the evidence using GRADE. Main results: We included 40 studies (5613 eyes of 4028 people) in this review. The majority of the studies were conducted in Europe and in the USA. Most of the studies were at risk of performance and/or detection bias as they were unmasked. None of the studies were judged as having low risk of bias for all domains. We did not identify any studies of laser trabeculoplasty alone versus no intervention. Laser trabeculoplasty versus medication Fourteen studies compared laser trabeculoplasty with medication in either people with primary OAG (7 studies) or primary or secondary OAG (7 studies); five of the 14 studies also included participants with OHT. Six studies used argon laser trabeculoplasty and eight studies used selective laser trabeculoplasty. There was considerable clinical and methodological diversity in these studies leading to statistical heterogeneity in results for the primary outcome "failure to control IOP" at 24 months. Risk ratios (RRs) ranged from 0.43 in favour of laser trabeculoplasty to 1.87 in favour of medication (5 studies, I2 = 89%). Studies of argon laser compared with medication were more likely to show a beneficial effect compared with studies of selective laser (test for interaction P = 0.0001) but the argon laser studies were older and the medication comparator group in those studies may have been less effective. We considered this to be low-certainty evidence because the trials were at risk of bias (they were not masked) and there was unexplained heterogeneity. There was evidence from two studies (624 eyes) that argon laser treatment was associated with less failure to stabilise visual field progression compared with medication (7% versus 11%, RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.16) at 24 months and one further large recent study of selective laser also reported a reduced risk of failure at 48 months (17% versus 26%) RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.81, 1178 eyes). We judged this outcome as moderate-certainty evidence, downgrading for risk of bias. There was only very low-certainty evidence on optic neuropathy progression. Adverse effects were more commonly seen in the laser trabeculoplasty group including peripheral anterior synechiae (PAS) associated with argon laser (32% versus 26%, RR 11.74, 95% CI 5.94 to 23.22; 624 eyes; 2 RCTs; low-certainty evidence); 5% of participants treated with laser in three studies of selective laser group had early IOP spikes (moderate-certainty evidence). One UK-based study provided moderate-certainty evidence that laser trabeculoplasty was more cost-effective. Laser trabeculoplasty versus trabeculectomy Three studies compared laser trabeculoplasty with trabeculectomy. All three studies enrolled participants with OAG (primary or secondary) and used argon laser. People receiving laser trabeculoplasty may have a higher risk of uncontrolled IOP at 24 months compared with people receiving trabeculectomy (16% versus 8%, RR 2.12, 95% CI 1.44 to 3.11; 901 eyes; 2 RCTs). We judged this to be low-certainty evidence because of risk of bias (trials were not masked) and there was inconsistency between the two trials (I2 = 68%). There was limited evidence on visual field progression suggesting a higher risk of failure with laser trabeculoplasty. There was no information on optic neuropathy progression, quality of life or costs. PAS formation and IOP spikes were not reported but in one study trabeculectomy was associated with an increased risk of cataract (RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.46 to 2.16) (very low-certainty evidence). Authors' conclusions: Laser trabeculoplasty may work better than topical medication in slowing down the progression of open-angle glaucoma (rate of visual field loss) and may be similar to modern eye drops in controlling eye pressure at a lower cost. It is not associated with serious unwanted effects, particularly for the newer types of trabeculoplasty, such as selective laser trabeculoplasty.

Background: We undertook a Grand Challenges in Global Eye Health prioritisation exercise to identify the key issues that must be addressed to improve eye health in the context of an ageing population, to eliminate persistent inequities in health-care access, and to mitigate widespread resource limitations. Methods: Drawing on methods used in previous Grand Challenges studies, we used a multi-step recruitment strategy to assemble a diverse panel of individuals from a range of disciplines relevant to global eye health from all regions globally to participate in a three-round, online, Delphi-like, prioritisation process to nominate and rank challenges in global eye health. Through this process, we developed both global and regional priority lists. Findings: Between Sept 1 and Dec 12, 2019, 470 individuals complete round 1 of the process, of whom 336 completed all three rounds (round 2 between Feb 26 and March 18, 2020, and round 3 between April 2 and April 25, 2020) 156 (46%) of 336 were women, 180 (54%) were men. The proportion of participants who worked in each region ranged from 104 (31%) in sub-Saharan Africa to 21 (6%) in central Europe, eastern Europe, and in central Asia. Of 85 unique challenges identified after round 1, 16 challenges were prioritised at the global level; six focused on detection and treatment of conditions (cataract, refractive error, glaucoma, diabetic retinopathy, services for children and screening for early detection), two focused on addressing shortages in human resource capacity, five on other health service and policy factors (including strengthening policies, integration, health information systems, and budget allocation), and three on improving access to care and promoting equity. Interpretation: This list of Grand Challenges serves as a starting point for immediate action by funders to guide investment in research and innovation in eye health. It challenges researchers, clinicians, and policy makers to build collaborations to address specific challenges.

Background We undertook a Grand Challenges in Global Eye Health prioritisation exercise to identify the key issues that must be addressed to improve eye health in the context of an ageing population, to eliminate persistent inequities in health-care access, and to mitigate widespread resource limitations. Methods Drawing on methods used in previous Grand Challenges studies, we used a multi-step recruitment strategy to assemble a diverse panel of individuals from a range of disciplines relevant to global eye health from all regions globally to participate in a three-round, online, Delphi-like, prioritisation process to nominate and rank challenges in global eye health. Through this process, we developed both global and regional priority lists. Findings Between Sept 1 and Dec 12, 2019, 470 individuals complete round 1 of the process, of whom 336 completed all three rounds (round 2 between Feb 26 and March 18, 2020, and round 3 between April 2 and April 25, 2020) 156 (46%) of 336 were women, 180 (54%) were men. The proportion of participants who worked in each region ranged from 104 (31%) in sub-Saharan Africa to 21 (6%) in central Europe, eastern Europe, and in central Asia. Of 85 unique challenges identified after round 1, 16 challenges were prioritised at the global level; six focused on detection and treatment of conditions (cataract, refractive error, glaucoma, diabetic retinopathy, services for children and screening for early detection), two focused on addressing shortages in human resource capacity, five on other health service and policy factors (including strengthening policies, integration, health information systems, and budget allocation), and three on improving access to care and promoting equity. Interpretation This list of Grand Challenges serves as a starting point for immediate action by funders to guide investment in research and innovation in eye health. It challenges researchers, clinicians, and policy makers to build collaborations to address specific challenges. Funding The Queen Elizabeth Diamond Jubilee Trust, Moorfields Eye Charity, National Institute for Health Research Moorfields Biomedical Research Centre, Wellcome Trust, Sightsavers, The Fred Hollows Foundation, The Seva Foundation, British Council for the Prevention of Blindness, and Christian Blind Mission. Translations For the French, Spanish, Chinese, Portuguese, Arabic and Persian translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Importance Glaucoma affects more than 75 million people worldwide. Intraocular pressure (IOP)–lowering surgery is an important treatment for this disease. Interest in reducing surgical morbidity has led to the introduction of minimally invasive glaucoma surgeries (MIGS). Understanding the comparative effectiveness and safety of MIGS is necessary for clinicians and patients. Objective To summarize data from randomized clinical trials of MIGS for open-angle glaucoma, which were evaluated in a suite of Cochrane reviews. Data Sources The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews including studies published before June 1, 2021. Study Selection Reviews of randomized clinical trials comparing MIGS with cataract extraction alone, other MIGS, traditional glaucoma surgery, laser trabeculoplasty, or medical therapy. Data Extraction and Synthesis Data were extracted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines by one investigator and confirmed by a second. Methodologic rigor was assessed using the AMSTAR 2 appraisal tool and random-effects network meta-analyses were conducted. Main Outcomes and Measures The proportion of participants who did not need to use medication to reduce intraocular pressure (IOP) postsurgery (drop-free). Outcomes were analyzed at short-term (<6 months), medium-term (6-18 months), and long-term (>18 months) follow-up. Results Six eligible Cochrane reviews were identified discussing trabecular bypass with iStent or Hydrus microstents, ab interno trabeculotomy with Trabectome, subconjunctival and supraciliary drainage devices, and endoscopic cyclophotocoagulation. Moderate certainty evidence indicated that adding a Hydrus safely improved the likelihood of drop-free glaucoma control at medium-term (relative risk [RR], 1.6; 95% CI, 1.4 to 1.8) and long-term (RR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.4 to 1.9) follow-up and conferred 2.0-mm Hg (95% CI, −2.7 to −1.3 mm Hg) greater IOP reduction at long-term follow-up, compared with cataract surgery alone. Adding an iStent also safely improved drop-free disease control compared with cataract surgery alone (RR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.2 to 1.6), but the short-term IOP-lowering effect of the iStent was not sustained. Addition of a CyPass microstent improved drop-free glaucoma control compared with cataract surgery alone (RR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.1 to 1.5) but was associated with an increased risk of vraision loss. Network meta-analyses supported the direction and magnitude of these results. Conclusions and Relevance Based on data synthesized in Cochrane reviews, some MIGS may afford patients with glaucoma greater drop-free disease control than cataract surgery alone. Among the products currently available, randomized clinical trial data associate the Hydrus with greater drop-free glaucoma control and IOP lowering than the iStent; however, these effect sizes were small.