Summary of findings: autologous serum vs artificial tears
Schirmer’s test Score < 4 mm indicates severe dry eye · people with dry eye
1 finding from 1 review
- no estimate extracted1 study · 20 participantsLow
Findings
What do systematic reviews say?
189 questions · 190 findings · 12 reviews · Eyes and Vision
No studies found 57 · 30%GRADE not reported 4 · 2.1%Very low 53 · 27.9%Low 33 · 17.4%Moderate 28 · 14.7%High 15 · 7.9%
Summary of findings: autologous serum vs artificial tears
Adverse events · people with dry eye
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
- no estimate extractedStudies not reportedNo studies found
Summary of findings: autologous serum vs Normal saline
Participant‐reported symptoms · people with dry eye
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
- no estimate extractedStudies not reportedNo studies found
Summary of findings: autologous serum vs Normal saline
Tear hyperosmolarity · people with dry eye
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
- no estimate extractedStudies not reportedNo studies found
Summary of findings table ‐ Pseudophakia vs aphakia
Visual acuity · children younger than two years of age with bilateral congenital cataracts
1 finding from 1 review
- Surgical interventions for bilateral congenital cataract in children aged two years and under 2022 · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyno estimate extracted1 study · 54 participantsVery low
Summary of findings table ‐ Pseudophakia vs aphakia
Visual axis opacification · children younger than two years of age with bilateral congenital cataracts
It is very uncertain whether summary of findings table ‐ Pseudophakia changes visual axis opacification compared with aphakia (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
- Surgical interventions for bilateral congenital cataract in children aged two years and under 2022 · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyRR 1.29 [0.23, 7.13]1 study · 54 participantsVery low
Summary of findings table ‐ Pseudophakia vs aphakia
Amblyopia ‐ not reported · children younger than two years of age with bilateral congenital cataracts
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
- Surgical interventions for bilateral congenital cataract in children aged two years and under 2022 · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyno estimate extractedStudies not reportedNo studies found
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).
1 finding from 1 review
- Surgical interventions for bilateral congenital cataract in children aged two years and under 2022 · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyRR 0.86 [0.24, 3.1]1 study · 54 participantsVery low
Summary of findings table ‐ Pseudophakia vs aphakia
Retinal detachment ‐ not reported · children younger than two years of age with bilateral congenital cataracts
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
- Surgical interventions for bilateral congenital cataract in children aged two years and under 2022 · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyno estimate extractedStudies not reportedNo studies found
Summary of findings table ‐ Pseudophakia vs aphakia
Reoperation rate ‐ not reported · children younger than two years of age with bilateral congenital cataracts
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
- Surgical interventions for bilateral congenital cataract in children aged two years and under 2022 · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyno estimate extractedStudies not reportedNo studies found
Summary of findings table ‐ Pseudophakia vs aphakia
Adverse events · children younger than two years of age with bilateral congenital cataracts
1 finding from 1 review
- Surgical interventions for bilateral congenital cataract in children aged two years and under 2022 · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyno estimate extracted1 study · 54 participantsVery low
Anti‐VEGF vs control
BCVA: gain of 15 or more ETDRS letters · people with neovascular age‐related macular degeneration
Summary of findings: anti‐VEGF treatment probably leads to higher gain of 15 or more letters visual acuity at 1 year compared with control (moderate certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
- Anti‐vascular endothelial growth factor for neovascular age‐related macular degeneration 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyRR 4.19 [2.32, 7.55]6 studies · 2667 participantsModerate
Anti‐VEGF vs control
Loss of fewer than 15 letters visual acuity at one year · people with neovascular age‐related macular degeneration
Summary of findings: anti‐VEGF treatment leads to higher loss of fewer than 15 letters visual acuity at 1 year compared with control (high certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
- Anti‐vascular endothelial growth factor for neovascular age‐related macular degeneration 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyRR 1.4 [1.27, 1.55]6 studies · 2667 participantsHigh
Anti‐VEGF vs control
Mean change in visual acuity at 1 year (number of letters) · people with neovascular age‐related macular degeneration
1 finding from 1 review
- Anti‐vascular endothelial growth factor for neovascular age‐related macular degeneration 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyno estimate extracted4 studies · 2508 participantsModerate
Anti‐VEGF vs control
Reduction in central retinal thickness at one year · people with neovascular age‐related macular degeneration
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
- Anti‐vascular endothelial growth factor for neovascular age‐related macular degeneration 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyno estimate extractedStudies not reportedNo studies found
Anti‐VEGF vs control
Vision‐related quality of life · people with neovascular age‐related macular degeneration
Summary of findings: anti‐VEGF treatment probably leads to higher mean change in vision‐related quality of life compared with control (moderate certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
- Anti‐vascular endothelial growth factor for neovascular age‐related macular degeneration 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyMD 6.69 [3.38, 9.99]2 studies · 1134 participantsModerate
Anti‐VEGF vs control
Serious systemic adverse events at one year · people with neovascular age‐related macular degeneration
Summary of findings: anti‐VEGF treatment showed no clear difference in serious systemic adverse events at 1 year compared with control (moderate certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
- Anti‐vascular endothelial growth factor for neovascular age‐related macular degeneration 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyRR 0.17 [0.01, 4.24]6 studies · 2667 participantsModerate
Anti‐VEGF vs control
Serious ocular adverse events at one year · people with neovascular age‐related macular degeneration
Summary of findings: anti‐VEGF treatment showed no clear difference in serious ocular adverse events at 1 year compared with control (moderate certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
- Anti‐vascular endothelial growth factor for neovascular age‐related macular degeneration 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyRR 0.52 [0.03, 8.25]6 studies · 2667 participantsModerate
Summary of findings for conjunctival autograft vs amniotic membrane transplant
Recurrence of pterygium · people with primary or recurrent pterygium
It is very uncertain whether summary of findings for conjunctival autograft changes recurrence of pterygium compared with amniotic membrane transplant (very low certainty).
2 findings from 1 review
- RR 0.87 [0.43, 1.77]Studies not reportedVery low
- RR 0.53 [0.33, 0.85]Studies not reportedModerate
Summary of findings for conjunctival autograft vs amniotic membrane transplant
Clinical improvement (non‐recurrence risk) · people with primary or recurrent pterygium
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
- no estimate extractedStudies not reportedNo studies found