Summary of findings table ‐ Pseudophakia vs aphakia: Glaucoma at 5 years
It is very uncertain whether summary of findings table ‐ Pseudophakia changes glaucoma at 5 years compared with aphakia (very low certainty).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Summary of findings table ‐ Pseudophakia vs aphakia Glaucoma at 5 years · children younger than two years of age with bilateral congenital cataracts It is very uncertain whether summary of findings table ‐ Pseudophakia changes glaucoma at 5 years compared with aphakia (very low certainty). Surgical interventions for bilateral congenital cataract in children aged two years and under (2022) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 0.86 [0.24, 3.1] | 1 study · 54 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 bilateral congenital cataract in children aged two years and under 2022 · 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.