Face‐down positioning vs no face‐down positioning or posturing after macular hole surgery: Closure of macular hole
Face‐down positioning or posturing showed no clear difference in macular hole closure (anatomical assessment) compared with no face‐down positioning or posturing after macular hole surgery (low certainty).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Face‐down positioning or posturing vs no face‐down positioning or posturing after macular hole surgery Macular hole closure (anatomical assessment) · adults with idiopathic macular holes Face‐down positioning or posturing showed no clear difference in macular hole closure (anatomical assessment) compared with no face‐down positioning or posturing after macular hole surgery (low certainty). Face‐down positioning or posturing after macular hole surgery (2023) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 1.05 [0.99, 1.12] | 8 studies · 699 participants | Low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Face‐down positioning or posturing after macular hole surgery 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not 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.