Cochrane · systematic review · CD009080
Vitrectomy for idiopathic macular hole
Parravano, M, Giansanti, F, Eandi, CM, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2015 · 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
7
current version
GRADE rated
4
No studies
2
Included studies
NR
No studies 2 · 28.6%Ungraded 1 · 14.3%Very low 0 · 0%Low 2 · 28.6%Moderate 1 · 14.3%High 1 · 14.3%
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
Vitrectomy compared to observation for idiopathic macular hole
Population: participants with idiopathic macular hole
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Mean visual acuity (logMAR) at 6‐12 months Vitrectomy vs observation | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 270 participants | Moderate |
Hole closure at 6‐12 months Vitrectomy vs observation | OR 31.4 [14.9, 66.3] | 3 studies · 265 participants | High |
Reading acuity at 6 months Vitrectomy vs observation | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 154 participants | Low |
Reading speed (word/minute) at 6 months Vitrectomy vs observation | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 118 participants | Low |
Hole recurrence Vitrectomy vs observation | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse outcomes Vitrectomy vs observation | no estimate extracted | 1997 participants | Ungraded |
Costs Vitrectomy vs observation | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |