Question · asked by 1 review

Wavefront‐optimized procedures vs wavefront‐guided procedures: Proportion of eyes with uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA) of 20/20 or better post‐treatment. ‐ 12 months

Wavefront‐optimized procedures showed no clear difference in proportion of eyes with uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA) of 20/20 or… compared with wavefront‐guided procedures (low certainty).

What each review found

Current versions only
FindingEffectStudiesGRADE certainty
Wavefront‐optimized procedures vs wavefront‐guided procedures
Proportion of eyes with uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA) of 20/20 or better post‐treatment:12 months ‐ overall estimate · Adults with refractive errors
Wavefront‐optimized procedures showed no clear difference in proportion of eyes with uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA) of 20/20 or… compared with wavefront‐guided procedures (low certainty).
Wavefront excimer laser refractive surgery for adults with refractive errors (2020) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 1 [0.99, 1.02]5 studies · 618 participantsLow

Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.

The reviews

ReviewSearched up toIncluded studiesAMSTAR 2
Wavefront excimer laser refractive surgery for adults with refractive errors
2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
Not reportedlist not extracted yetNot 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.