Please, my homework is below, I need a big favor please if you don't mind could you answer for those questions I really need all questions answered. Thank you.

1. What was the goal of this review?
2. What question is it trying to answer?
3. How many research articles did the authors read?
4. How many research participants, in total, did that number of studies include?
5. What was the authors' opinion about the quality of evidence in the studies they read?
6. Based on the evidence in this meta-analysis, is there reason to recommend aqueous shunts over the traditional treatment of trabeculectomy?
7. How does reading the meta-analysis inform your opinion about best practice, compared to reading a single one of the described studies in the analysis?

Aqueous shunts for glaucoma Victoria L Tseng1 , Anne L Coleman1 , Melinda Y Chang1 , Joseph Caprioli1 1Stein Eye Institute, UCLA, Los Angeles, California, USA Contact address: Victoria L Tseng, Stein Eye Institute, UCLA, 100 Stein Plaza, Los Angeles, California, 90025, USA. t..g@jsei.ucla.edu. Editorial group: Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group. Publication status and date: New search for studies and content updated (conclusions changed), published in Issue 7, 2017. Citation: Tseng VL, Coleman AL, Chang MY, Caprioli J. Aqueous shunts for glaucoma. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2017, Issue 7. Art. No.: CD004918. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004918.pub3. Copyright 2017 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

A B S T R A C T

Background Aqueous shunts are employed to control intraocular pressure (IOP) for people with primary or secondary glaucomas who fail or are not candidates for standard surgery. Objectives To assess the effectiveness and safety of aqueous shunts for reducing IOP in glaucoma compared with standard surgery, another type of aqueous shunt, or modification to the aqueous shunt procedure. Search methods We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2016, Issue 8), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to August 2016), Embase.com (1947 to August 2016), PubMed (1948 to August 2016), LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database) (1982 to August 2016), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov); searched 15 August 2016, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en); searched 15 August 2016. We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic search for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 15 August 2016. We also searched the reference lists of identified trial reports and the Science Citation Index to find additional trials. Selection criteria We included randomized controlled trials that compared various types of aqueous shunts with standard surgery or to each other in eyes with glaucoma. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently screened search results for eligibility, assessed the risk of bias, and extracted data from included trials. We contacted trial investigators when data were unclear or not reported. We graded the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We followed standard methods as recommended by Cochrane. Main results We included 27 trials with a total of 2099 participants with mixed diagnoses and comparisons of interventions. Seventeen studies reported adequate methods of randomization, and seven reported adequate allocation concealment. Data collection and follow-up times varied.

Four trials compared an aqueous shunt (Ahmed or Baerveldt) with trabeculectomy, of which three reported one-year outcomes. At one-year, the difference in IOP between aqueous shunt groups and trabeculectomy groups was uncertain (mean difference (MD) 2.55 mmHg, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.78 to 5.87; 380 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The difference in logMAR visual acuity was also uncertain (MD 0.12 units, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.31; 380 participants; very low-certainty evidence). In two trials, the difference in visual field score was uncertain (MD -0.25, 95% CI -1.91 to 1.40; 196 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The mean number of antiglaucoma medications was higher in the aqueous shunt group than the trabeculectomy group in one trial (MD 0.80, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.12; 184 participants; low-certainty evidence). The effect on needing additional glaucoma surgery was uncertain between groups in two trials (risk ratio (RR) 0.24, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.36; 329 participants; very low-certainty evidence). In one trial, fewer total adverse events were reported in the aqueous shunt group than the trabeculectomy group (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.81; 212 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No trial reported quality-of-life outcomes at one-year follow-up. Two trials that compared the Ahmed implant with the Baerveldt implant for glaucoma found higher mean IOP in the Ahmed group at one-year follow-up (MD 2.60 mmHg, 95% CI 1.58 to 3.62; 464 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The difference in logMAR visual acuity was uncertain between groups (MD -0.07 units, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.13; 501 participants; low-certainty evidence). The MD in number of antiglaucoma medications was within one between groups (MD 0.35, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.59; 464 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). More participants in the Ahmed group required additional glaucoma surgery than the Baerveldt group (RR 2.77, 95% CI 1.02 to 7.54; 514 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The two trials reported specific adverse events but not overall number of adverse events. Neither trial reported visual field or quality-of-life outcomes at one-year follow-up. One trial compared the Ahmed implant with the Molteno implant for glaucoma over two-year follow-up. Mean IOP was higher in the Ahmed group than the Molteno group (MD 1.64 mmHg, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.43; 57 participants; low-certainty evidence). The differences in logMAR visual acuity (MD 0.08 units, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.40; 57 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and mean deviation in visual field (MD -0.18 dB, 95% CI -3.13 to 2.77; 57 participants; very low-certainty evidence) were uncertain between groups. The mean number of antiglaucoma medications was also uncertain between groups (MD -0.38, 95% CI -1.03 to 0.27; 57 participants; low-certainty evidence). The trial did not report the proportion needing additional glaucoma surgery, total adverse events, or quality-of-life outcomes. Two trials compared the double-plate Molteno implant with the Schocket shunt for glaucoma; one trial reported outcomes only at sixmonth follow-up, and the other did not specify the follow-up time. At six-months, mean IOP was lower in the Molteno group than the Schocket group (MD -2.50 mmHg, 95% CI -4.60 to -0.40; 115 participants; low-certainty evidence). Neither trial reported the proportion needing additional glaucoma surgery, total adverse events, or visual acuity, visual field, or quality-of-life outcomes. The remaining 18 trials evaluated modifications to aqueous shunts, including 14 trials of Ahmed implants (early aqueous suppression versus standard medication regimen, 2 trials; anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agent versus none, 4 trials; corticosteroids versus none, 2 trials; shunt augmentation versus none, 3 trials; partial tube ligation versus none, 1 trial; pars plana implantation versus conventional implantation, 1 trial; and model M4 versus model S2,1 trial); 1 trial of 500 mm2 Baerveldt versus 350 mm2 Baerveldt; and 3 trials of Molteno implants (single-plate with oral corticosteroids versus single-plate without oral corticosteroids, 1 trial; doubleplate versus single-plate, 1 trial; and pressure-ridge versus double-plate with tube ligation, 1 trial). Authors' conclusions Information was insufficient to conclude whether there are differences between aqueous shunts and trabeculectomy for glaucoma treatment. While the Baerveldt implant may lower IOP more than the Ahmed implant, the evidence was of moderate-certainty and it is unclear whether the difference in IOP reduction is clinically significant. Overall, methodology and data quality among existing randomized controlled trials of aqueous shunts was heterogeneous across studies, and there are no well-justified or widely accepted generalizations about the superiority of one surgical procedure or device over another.

P L A I N L A N G U A G E S U M M A R Y: Aqueous shunts for glaucoma What was the aim of this review? We aimed to learn: 1. how successful and safe aqueous shunts are for lowering eye pressure when compared with standard surgery (trabeculectomy); 2. how successful and safe various types of aqueous shunts are when compared with each other; and 3. how successful and safe aqueous shunts are when the procedure is modified. Our search for relevant studies identified 27 trials. Key messages It is uncertain if aqueous shunts are more effective or are safer than standard surgery (trabeculectomy) for glaucoma (very low-certainty evidence). The Baerveldt and Molteno aqueous shunts may reduce eye pressure more than the Ahmed shunt (moderate- and lowcertainty evidence). What did we study in this review? Glaucoma is a condition caused by the build-up of fluid in the front part of the eye. This build-up of fluid raises the eye pressure, which can lead to damage of the optic nerve and vision loss. Some people with glaucoma need surgery to reduce eye pressure. Standard surgery is called trabeculectomy. In trabeculectomy, a small hole is made to the tissue in the front of the eye to create a drain for the fluid. Alternatively, a small implant called an aqueous shunt can be inserted into the eye to create a pathway for fluid to drain. What were the main results of this review? We found 27 studies. Four studies compared an aqueous shunt (either Ahmed or Baerveldt) with standard surgery (trabeculectomy). Five trials compared two different types of shunt (Ahmed versus Baerveldt, Ahmed versus Molteno, Molteno versus Schocket). Eighteen studies compared modifications to aqueous shunts. The results of the review were as follows. 1. The evidence comparing aqueous shunts with trabeculectomy was of very low-certainty. 2. There were some differences between different implants: the Baerveldt and Molteno implants may work better than the Ahmed implant; eye pressure was reduced more and fewer antiglaucoma medications were needed (moderate- and low-certainty evidence). The Molteno implant may work better than the Schocket implant (low-certainty evidence on eye pressure only). 3. Although 18 trials looked at modifications to aqueous shunts, many different modifications were studied, and the evidence was inconclusive.