Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

2,079 questions · 2,112 findings · 171 reviews · Eyes and Vision

Sort:Best matchNewestHighest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 587 · 27.8%GRADE not reported 95 · 4.5%Very low 446 · 21.1%Low 557 · 26.4%Moderate 361 · 17.1%High 66 · 3.1%

Intervention not reported

Tropicamide plus bifocal spectacles vs SVLs · children with myopia (nearsightedness)

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions to slow progression of myopia in children 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
1 study · 50 participants
GRADE not reported

Intervention not reported

Comparison (intervention vs comparator) · children with myopia (nearsightedness)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions to slow progression of myopia in children 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Intervention not reported

Adverse effects · children with myopia (nearsightedness)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions to slow progression of myopia in children 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Intervention not reported

Multifocal vs single vision lens spectacles · children with myopia (nearsightedness)

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions to slow progression of myopia in children 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
9 studies · 1463 participants
Moderate

Intervention not reported

Peripheral plus spectacles vs single vision lens spectacles · children with myopia (nearsightedness)

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions to slow progression of myopia in children 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
3 studies · 597 participants
Low

Intervention not reported

Bifocal vs single vision soft contact lenses · children with myopia (nearsightedness)

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions to slow progression of myopia in children 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
4 studies · 300 participants
Low

Intervention not reported

Rigid gas permeable contact lenses vs spectacles or soft contact lenses · children with myopia (nearsightedness)

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions to slow progression of myopia in children 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
2 studies · 420 participants
Very low

Intervention not reported

Orthokeratology contact lenses vs single vision lenses · children with myopia (nearsightedness)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions to slow progression of myopia in children 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Intervention not reported

Spherical aberration soft contact lenses vs single vision soft contact lenses · children with myopia (nearsightedness)

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions to slow progression of myopia in children 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
2 studies · 209 participants
Low

Intervention not reported

Antimuscarinic agents vs placebo · children with myopia (nearsightedness)

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions to slow progression of myopia in children 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
3 studies · 629 participants
Moderate

Intervention not reported

Atropine vs tropicamide · children with myopia (nearsightedness)

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions to slow progression of myopia in children 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
1 study · 196 participants
Low

Intravitreal dexamethasone implant 0.7 mg vs sham

Change in visual acuity (logMAR) ‐ 12 months (negative is better) · macular edema in diabetes

1 finding from 1 review

Intravitreal steroids for macular edema in diabetes 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
1 study · 701 participants
Moderate

Intravitreal dexamethasone implant 0.7 mg vs antiVEGF

Cataract progression · macular edema in diabetes

Intravitreal dexamethasone implant 0.7 mg probably leads to higher cataract progression ‐ 12 to 24 months compared with intravitreal antiVEGF (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Intravitreal steroids for macular edema in diabetes 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 4.23 [2.36, 7.59]
Studies not reported
Moderate

Intravitreal dexamethasone implant 0.7 mg vs antiVEGF

Use of IOP‐lowering medications ‐ 24 months · macular edema in diabetes

Intravitreal dexamethasone implant 0.7 mg probably leads to higher use of IOP‐lowering medications ‐ 24 months compared with intravitreal antiVEGF (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Intravitreal steroids for macular edema in diabetes 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 4.76 [2.84, 7.99]
Studies not reported
Moderate

Intravitreal dexamethasone implant 0.7 mg vs antiVEGF

Surgery for glaucoma ‐ 24 months · macular edema in diabetes

It is very uncertain whether intravitreal dexamethasone implant 0.7 mg changes surgery for glaucoma ‐ 24 months compared with intravitreal antiVEGF (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Intravitreal steroids for macular edema in diabetes 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 3.02 [0.12, 73.56]
Studies not reported
Very low

Intravitreal fluocinolone acetonide implant 0.19 mg vs sham

Change in visual acuity (logMAR) ‐ 12 months (negative is better) · macular edema in diabetes

1 finding from 1 review

Intravitreal steroids for macular edema in diabetes 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
1 study · 560 participants
Moderate

Intravitreal fluocinolone acetonide implant 0.19 mg vs sham

Gain 3+ lines of visual acuity at 1 year · macular edema in diabetes

Intravitreal fluocinolone acetonide implant 0.19 mg probably leads to higher gain of three or more lines visual acuity ‐ 12 months compared with sham (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Intravitreal steroids for macular edema in diabetes 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 1.79 [1.16, 2.78]
1 study · 560 participants
Moderate

Intravitreal fluocinolone acetonide implant 0.19 mg vs sham

Change in retinal thickness (micron) ‐ 12 months (negative is better) · macular edema in diabetes

1 finding from 1 review

Intravitreal steroids for macular edema in diabetes 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
1 study · 560 participants
Moderate

Intravitreal fluocinolone acetonide implant 0.19 mg vs sham

Cataract progression ‐ 24 months · macular edema in diabetes

Intravitreal fluocinolone acetonide implant 0.19 mg probably leads to higher cataract progression ‐ 24 months compared with sham (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Intravitreal steroids for macular edema in diabetes 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 1.63 [1.35, 1.97]
1 study · 355 participants
Moderate

Intravitreal fluocinolone acetonide implant 0.19 mg vs sham

Use of IOP‐lowering medications ‐ 24 months · macular edema in diabetes

Intravitreal fluocinolone acetonide implant 0.19 mg probably leads to higher use of IOP‐lowering medications ‐ 24 months compared with sham (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Intravitreal steroids for macular edema in diabetes 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 2.72 [1.87, 3.98]
1 study · 558 participants
Moderate