Question · asked by 1 review
Summary of Findings Table ‐ Large retro‐equatorial recession of horizontal rectus muscle of 9 mm on the medial rectus and 12 mm on the lateral rectus vs simple tenotomy and resuturing of the 4 horizontal rectus muscles: Change in proportion of participants with adverse effects with a probable causal link to the treatment
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Summary of Findings Table ‐ Large retro‐equatorial recession of horizontal rectus muscle of 9 mm on the medial rectus and 12 mm on the lateral rectus vs simple tenotomy and resuturing of the 4 horizontal rectus muscles Change in proportion of participants with adverse effects with a probable causal link to the treatment · infantile nystagmus syndrome Surgical interventions for infantile nystagmus syndrome (2021) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 10 participants | Very low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Surgical interventions for infantile nystagmus syndrome 2021 · 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.