Cochrane · systematic review · CD001861
Interventions for recurrent corneal erosions
Watson, SL, Leung, V · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2018 · Cochrane Library
Eyes and VisionAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
21
current version
GRADE rated
14
No studies
7
Included studies
NR
No studies 7 · 33.3%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 4 · 19%Low 8 · 38.1%Moderate 2 · 9.5%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Therapeutic contact lens versus topical lubrication for the treatment of recurrent corneal erosion syndrome
Population: people with recurrent corneal erosion syndrome without previous surgical intervention
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Resolution of symptoms after treatment Therapeutic contact lens vs topical lubrication | RR 0.97 [0.62, 1.53] | 1 study · 29 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Recurrence after complete or partial resolution Therapeutic contact lens vs topical lubrication | RR 1.07 [0.07, 15.54] | 1 study · 29 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Time to recurrence Therapeutic contact lens vs topical lubrication | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Recurrences requiring further treatment Therapeutic contact lens vs topical lubrication | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Symptoms (pain score) Therapeutic contact lens vs topical lubrication | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 29 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Adverse effects: corneal haze Therapeutic contact lens vs topical lubrication | no estimate extracted | NR | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Adverse effects: astigmatism Therapeutic contact lens vs topical lubrication | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Phototherapeutic keratectomy versus alcohol delamination for the treatment of recurrent corneal erosion syndrome
Population: people with recurrent corneal erosion syndrome without previous surgical intervention
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Resolution of symptoms after treatment Phototherapeutic keratectomy vs alcohol delamination | RR 0.64 [0.3, 1.35] | 1 study · 33 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Recurrence after complete or partial resolution Phototherapeutic keratectomy vs alcohol delamination | RR 1.27 [0.48, 3.37] | 1 study · 33 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Time to recurrence Phototherapeutic keratectomy vs alcohol delamination | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 33 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Recurrences requiring further treatment Phototherapeutic keratectomy vs alcohol delamination | RR 0.71 [0.14, 3.7] | 1 study · 33 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Symptoms (pain score) (scale 0‐10) (lower scores indicate less pain) Phototherapeutic keratectomy vs alcohol delamination | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 33 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Adverse effects: corneal haze Phototherapeutic keratectomy vs alcohol delamination | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 33 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Adverse effects: astigmatism Phototherapeutic keratectomy vs alcohol delamination | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Diamond burr superficial keratectomy (after epithelial debridement) versus sham diamond burr (after epithelial debridement) for the treatment of recurrent corneal erosion syndrome
Population: people with recurrent corneal erosion syndrome without other corneal basement membrane dystrophy
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Resolution of symptoms after treatment Diamond burr superficial keratectomy (after epithelial debridement) vs sham diamond burr (after epithelial debridement) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Recurrence after complete or partial resolution Diamond burr superficial keratectomy (after epithelial debridement) vs sham diamond burr (after epithelial debridement) | RR 0.07 [0.01, 0.5] | 1 study · 48 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Time to recurrence Diamond burr superficial keratectomy (after epithelial debridement) vs sham diamond burr (after epithelial debridement) | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 48 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Recurrences requiring further treatment Diamond burr superficial keratectomy (after epithelial debridement) vs sham diamond burr (after epithelial debridement) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Symptoms (pain score) Diamond burr superficial keratectomy (after epithelial debridement) vs sham diamond burr (after epithelial debridement) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse effects: corneal haze Diamond burr superficial keratectomy (after epithelial debridement) vs sham diamond burr (after epithelial debridement) | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 48 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Adverse effects: astigmatism (mean magnitude) measured in dioptres. Higher value is worse astigmatism. Diamond burr superficial keratectomy (after epithelial debridement) vs sham diamond burr (after epithelial debridement) | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 48 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |