Question · asked by 1 review
Information video and counselling to improve access to cataract surgical services vs usual care: Prevalence of visual impairment due to cataract
- Population
- people with vision impairment caused by cataract
- Intervention
- Information video and counselling to improve access to cataract surgical services
- Comparison
- usual care
- Outcome
- Prevalence of visual impairment due to cataract
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Information video and counselling to improve access to cataract surgical services vs standard care Prevalence of visual impairment due to cataract · people with vision impairment caused by cataract The review found no eligible studies for this question. Interventions to improve access to cataract surgical services and their impact on equity in low‐ and… (2017) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | no estimate extracted | Not reported | No studies found |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Interventions to improve access to cataract surgical services and their impact on equity in low‐ and middle‐income countries 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | Not extracted | Not assessed |
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.