Summary of findings for conjunctival autograft vs amniotic membrane transplant: Recurrence of pterygium
It is very uncertain whether summary of findings for conjunctival autograft changes recurrence of pterygium compared with amniotic membrane transplant (very low certainty).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Summary of findings for conjunctival autograft vs amniotic membrane transplant Recurrence of pterygium · people with primary or recurrent pterygium It is very uncertain whether summary of findings for conjunctival autograft changes recurrence of pterygium compared with amniotic membrane transplant (very low certainty). Conjunctival autograft for pterygium (2016) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 0.87 [0.43, 1.77] | Not reported | Very low |
Summary of findings for conjunctival autograft vs amniotic membrane transplant Recurrence of pterygium · people with primary or recurrent pterygium Summary of findings for conjunctival autograft probably leads to lower recurrence of pterygium compared with amniotic membrane transplant (moderate certainty). Conjunctival autograft for pterygium (2016) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 0.53 [0.33, 0.85] | Not reported | Moderate |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Conjunctival autograft for pterygium 2016 · 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.