evidencegaps
Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

Refine by population, intervention, comparison or outcome
More filters
Evidence found and GRADE certainty

418 questions · 423 findings · 44 reviews · Eyes and Vision

Sort:Best matchNewestHighest certaintyDownload CSV
No studies found 122 · 28.8%GRADE not reported 26 · 6.1%Very low 98 · 23.2%Low 120 · 28.4%Moderate 53 · 12.5%High 4 · 0.9%

Educational intervention vs no educational intervention

Uncorrected visual acuity deficit due to refractive error · school‐age children and adolescents

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

2 findings from 1 review

Single herb plus conventional intervention vs conventional intervention

Visual improvement at end of treatment, as defined by two or more Snellen lines · people with diabetic retinopathy

Single herb plus conventional intervention may leads to higher visual acuity (gain of ≥ 2 lines) (end of treatment) compared with conventional intervention (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Single herb plus conventional intervention vs conventional intervention

Observations in retina: reduction in haemorrhages · people with diabetic retinopathy

It is very uncertain whether single herb plus conventional intervention changes observations in retina: reduction in haemorrhages compared with conventional intervention (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Non‐pharmaceutical interventions vs control

Visual acuity · people with traumatic hyphema

Non‐pharmaceutical interventions showed no clear difference in short‐term visual acuity between 20/20 and 20/60 at end of… compared with control (low certainty).

2 findings from 1 review

Non‐pharmaceutical interventions vs control

Final visual acuity between 20/20 and 20/50; monocular vs binocular eye patching · people with traumatic hyphema

Non‐pharmaceutical interventions showed no clear difference in final visual acuity between 20/20 and 20/50; monocular vs binocular… compared with control (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Non‐pharmaceutical interventions vs control

Risk of secondary hemorrhage; monocular versus binocular eye patching · people with traumatic hyphema

Non‐pharmaceutical interventions showed no clear difference in risk of secondary hemorrhage; monocular vs binocular eye patching compared with control (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Non‐pharmaceutical interventions vs control

Risk of secondary hemorrhage; ambulatory treatment versus bed rest · people with traumatic hyphema

Non‐pharmaceutical interventions showed no clear difference in risk of secondary hemorrhage; ambulatory treatment vs bed rest compared with control (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review