Question · asked by 1 review

IPL (with/without MGX) vs no treatment/sham: Meibomian gland orifice plugging, at 3 months of

It is very uncertain whether IPL (with/without MGX) changes meibomian gland orifice plugging, at 3 months of compared with sham or no treatment (with/without MGX) (very low certainty).

What each review found

Include earlier review versions
FindingEffectStudiesGRADE certainty
IPL (with/without MGX) vs sham or no treatment (with/without MGX)
Meibomian gland orifice plugging, at 3 months of · people with meibomian gland dysfunction
It is very uncertain whether IPL (with/without MGX) changes meibomian gland orifice plugging, at 3 months of compared with sham or no treatment (with/without MGX) (very low certainty).
Intense pulsed light (IPL) therapy for the treatment of meibomian gland dysfunction (2020) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extractedNot reportedVery low

Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.

The reviews

ReviewSearched up toIncluded studiesAMSTAR 2
Intense pulsed light (IPL) therapy for the treatment of meibomian gland dysfunction
2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
Not reportedlist not extracted yetNot assessed

Studies behind the findings

None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.

How reviews are matched to this question

Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.