Oral azithromycin vs topical tetracycline
Ocular chlamydia trachomatis infection · people (any age) with active trachoma
1 finding from 1 review
- no estimate extracted3 studies · 5773 participantsLow
Findings
What do systematic reviews say?
101 questions · 107 findings · 14 reviews · Eyes and Vision
No studies found 32 · 29.9%GRADE not reported 5 · 4.7%Very low 28 · 26.2%Low 29 · 27.1%Moderate 10 · 9.3%High 3 · 2.8%
Oral azithromycin vs topical tetracycline
Antibiotic resistance · people (any age) with active trachoma
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
- no estimate extractedStudies not reportedNo studies found
Oral azithromycin vs topical tetracycline
Adverse effects · people (any age) with active trachoma
1 finding from 1 review
- no estimate extracted3 studies · 6002 participantsGRADE not reported
Antibiotics vs control
Ocular chlamydia trachomatis infection · people (any age) with active trachoma
Antibiotic showed no clear difference in ocular C trachomatis infection Positive test for C trachomatis… compared with control (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
- RR 0.81 [0.63, 1.04]4 studies · 297 participantsLow
Antibiotics vs control
Antibiotic resistance · people (any age) with active trachoma
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
- no estimate extractedStudies not reportedNo studies found
Antibiotics vs control
Adverse effects · people (any age) with active trachoma
Antibiotic may leads to lower adverse effects compared with control (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
- no estimate extracted9 studies · 1961 participantsLow
Oral vs topical antibiotics
Ocular chlamydia trachomatis infection · people (any age) with active trachoma
1 finding from 1 review
- no estimate extracted3 studies · 298 participantsVery low
Oral vs topical antibiotics
Antibiotic resistance · people (any age) with active trachoma
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
- no estimate extractedStudies not reportedNo studies found
Oral vs topical antibiotics
Adverse effects · people (any age) with active trachoma
1 finding from 1 review
- no estimate extracted8 studies · 1583 participantsLow
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 versus pharmacologic penalization for amblyopia 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyno estimate extracted3 studies · 552 participantsModerate
- Conventional occlusion versus pharmacologic penalization for amblyopia 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyno estimate extracted2 studies · 483 participantsModerate
Conventional occlusion vs atropine penalization
Adherence · Participants of any age with either unilateral strabismic, anisometropic, or mixed (strabismic‐refractive) amblyopia; deprivation…
1 finding from 1 review
- Conventional occlusion versus pharmacologic penalization for amblyopia 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyno estimate extracted4 studies · 588 participantsModerate
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 versus pharmacologic penalization for amblyopia 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyno estimate extracted3 studies · 888 participantsModerate
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 versus pharmacologic penalization for amblyopia 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyno estimate extracted5 studies · 865 participantsModerate
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 versus pharmacologic penalization for amblyopia 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyno estimate extracted2 studies · 256 participantsModerate
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
- Conventional occlusion versus pharmacologic penalization for amblyopia 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyno estimate extracted2 studies · 612 participantsHigh
Intervention not reported
UCVA of 20/20 or better at 12 months post treatment · adult participants (≥ 18 years) with myopia
The intervention showed no clear difference in UCVA of 20/20 or better at 12 months post treatment (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
- Laser‐assisted subepithelial keratectomy (LASEK) versus photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) for correction of myopia 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyRR 0.98 [0.92, 1.05]Studies not reportedLow
Intervention not reported
Within ± 0.50 D of target refraction at 12 months post treatment · adult participants (≥ 18 years) with myopia
The intervention showed no clear difference in within ± 0.50 D of target refraction at 12 months post treatment (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
- Laser‐assisted subepithelial keratectomy (LASEK) versus photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) for correction of myopia 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyRR 0.93 [0.84, 1.03]Studies not reportedLow
Intervention not reported
Loss of 1 or more lines of BSCVA at 12 months post treatment · adult participants (≥ 18 years) with myopia
It is very uncertain whether the intervention changes loss of 1 or more lines of BSCVA at 12 months post treatment (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
- Laser‐assisted subepithelial keratectomy (LASEK) versus photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) for correction of myopia 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyRR 3 [0.13, 71.96]Studies not reportedVery low
Intervention not reported
Mean spherical equivalent at 12 months post treatment · adult participants (≥ 18 years) with myopia
1 finding from 1 review
- Laser‐assisted subepithelial keratectomy (LASEK) versus photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) for correction of myopia 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyno estimate extractedStudies not reportedModerate
Intervention not reported
Adverse outcomes ‐ corneal haze score at 12 months (grade 1.0 ‐ more prominent haze that does not interfere with visibility of fine iris details; grade 2.0 ‐ mild obscuration of iris details; grade 3.0 ‐ moderate obscuration of iris and lens; and ... · adult participants (≥ 18 years) with myopia
1 finding from 1 review
- Laser‐assisted subepithelial keratectomy (LASEK) versus photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) for correction of myopia 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyno estimate extractedStudies not reportedVery low