Steroid implant vs sham: Proportion of participants with elevated IOP or receiving intervention
Steroid implant probably leads to higher proportion of participants with elevated IOP or receiving intervention compared with sham procedure (moderate certainty).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Steroid implant vs sham procedure Proportion of participants with elevated IOP or receiving intervention · people with chronic non‐infectious uveitis Steroid implant probably leads to higher proportion of participants with elevated IOP or receiving intervention compared with sham procedure (moderate certainty). Corticosteroid implants for chronic non‐infectious uveitis (2023) · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyearlier version CD010469.PUB3, superseded | RR 2.81 [1.42, 5.56] | 2 studies · 282 participants | Moderate |
Steroid implant vs sham procedure Proportion of participants with elevated IOP or receiving intervention · people with chronic non‐infectious uveitis Steroid implant probably leads to higher proportion of participants with elevated IOP or receiving intervention compared with sham procedure (moderate certainty). Corticosteroid implants for chronic non‐infectious uveitis (2023) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 2.81 [1.42, 5.56] | 2 studies · 282 participants | Moderate |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Corticosteroid implants for chronic non‐infectious uveitis 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.