Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

150 questions · 154 findings · 22 reviews · Eyes and Vision

No studies found 6 · 3.9%GRADE not reported 3 · 1.9%Very low 44 · 28.6%Low 50 · 32.5%Moderate 48 · 31.2%High 3 · 1.9%

Rituximab vs intravenous methylprednisolone

CAS improvement (decrease) by 2 or more points · thyroid‐associated ophthalmopathy

Summary of findings table ‐ Rituximab showed no clear difference in CAS improvement (decrease) by 2 or more points compared with intravenous methylprednisolone (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Rituximab vs intravenous methylprednisolone

NOSPECS improvement (decrease) by 2 classes or more · thyroid‐associated ophthalmopathy

It is very uncertain whether summary of findings table ‐ Rituximab changes NOSPECS improvement (decrease) by 2 or more classes compared with intravenous methylprednisolone (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Rituximab vs intravenous methylprednisolone

Proptosis improvement (decrease) by 2 mm or more · thyroid‐associated ophthalmopathy

It is very uncertain whether summary of findings table ‐ Rituximab changes proptosis improvement (decrease) by 2 mm or more compared with intravenous methylprednisolone (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Rituximab vs intravenous methylprednisolone

Palpebral aperture improvement (decrease) by 3 mm or more · thyroid‐associated ophthalmopathy

It is very uncertain whether summary of findings table ‐ Rituximab changes palpebral aperture improvement (decrease) by 3 mm or more compared with intravenous methylprednisolone (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Rituximab vs intravenous methylprednisolone

Motility improvement (increase) by 1 class or more · thyroid‐associated ophthalmopathy

It is very uncertain whether summary of findings table ‐ Rituximab changes motility improvement (increase) by 1 class or more compared with intravenous methylprednisolone (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Conventional occlusion vs atropine penalization

Visual acuity · Participants of any age with either unilateral strabismic, anisometropic, or mixed (strabismic‐refractive) amblyopia; deprivation…
2 findings from 1 review

Conventional occlusion vs atropine penalization

Ocular alignment (different measures and time points reported in the included studies) Assessed at different time points (17 weeks, 24 months, or cessation of treatment) and by the proportions of participants who developed strabismus, showed chang... · Participants of any age with either unilateral strabismic, anisometropic, or mixed (strabismic‐refractive) amblyopia; deprivation…
1 finding from 1 review

Conventional occlusion vs atropine penalization

Stereo acuity (different measures and time points reported in the included studies) Assessed at different time points (17 weeks, 6 months, 2 years, or at cessation of treatment) and using different measures (TNO stereo test, Titmus fly test, Rando... · Participants of any age with either unilateral strabismic, anisometropic, or mixed (strabismic‐refractive) amblyopia; deprivation…
1 finding from 1 review

Conventional occlusion vs atropine penalization

Quality of life (different measures and time points reported in the included studies) Assessed at different time points (17 weeks or 6 months) by patient preference or the Amblyopia Treatment Index questionnaire. · Participants of any age with either unilateral strabismic, anisometropic, or mixed (strabismic‐refractive) amblyopia; deprivation…
1 finding from 1 review

Conventional occlusion vs atropine penalization

Adverse events (reported occurrence of: mild reduction in the visual acuity of the sound eye not requiring treatment; light sensitivity; skin, lid, or conjunctival irritation) Assessed at different time points (17 weeks or 2 years). · Participants of any age with either unilateral strabismic, anisometropic, or mixed (strabismic‐refractive) amblyopia; deprivation…
1 finding from 1 review